Jeffery T. Curry v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) ( 2015 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be Dec 23 2015, 9:45 am
regarded as precedent or cited before any
court except for the purpose of establishing
the defense of res judicata, collateral
estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Davina L. Curry Gregory F. Zoeller
The Curry Law Firm, LLC Attorney General
Greenwood, Indiana
Karl M. Scharnberg
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Jeffery T. Curry, December 23, 2015
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
49A02-1412-IF-859
v. Appeal from the Marion Superior
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable James Joven
Appellee-Plaintiff Trial Court Cause No.
49G13-1409-IF-53293
Vaidik, Chief Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1412-IF-859 | December 23, 2015 Page 1 of 5
Case Summary
[1] After he crossed the center line while honking and showing his middle finger to
a police officer, Jeffery Curry disregarded a red light and drove through the
intersection while the officer was following him with his siren and flashing
lights activated. When Curry eventually stopped and the officer asked him to
provide the officer with his truck’s registration, Curry told the officer that his
registration was current and the officer could look it up. Curry refused to look
for or show the registration. The trial court entered judgment against Curry for
the infractions of driving left of center, disregarding a lighted signal, and failing
to carry his registration in his vehicle. Curry argues that he did not receive
proper notice as to where he disregarded a traffic signal. He also argues that
there is insufficient evidence that he failed to carry his registration in his
vehicle. Because the officer told Curry that he had disregarded the red light at
Arlington and Southeastern Avenues, and because Curry failed to produce his
truck’s registration when the officer asked him to do so, we affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] At approximately 8:00 a.m. on September 3, 2014, Indianapolis Metropolitan
Police Department off-duty officer Robert Hatch pulled out of a parking lot and
turned left into the southbound lane of Five Points Road in Indianapolis as
Curry was driving northbound on Five Points. Curry, who believed the officer
had unsafely pulled out in front of him, honked his horn and displayed his
middle finger to the officer. As he did this, Curry’s tires went left of the center
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1412-IF-859 | December 23, 2015 Page 2 of 5
line, which required Officer Hatch to move to the edge of the road to avoid
being hit.
[3] Officer Hatch turned around at the first opportunity and began following Curry.
Because Five Points is a two-lane road with no shoulder, the officer was not
able to reach Curry until shortly before Curry reached the intersection of
Southeastern and Arlington Avenues. As Officer Hatch approached Curry, the
officer activated his lights. When Curry did not pull over, the officer activated
his siren. Curry still did not pull over. As the two vehicles approached
Arlington Avenue, the light turned red. Curry disregarded the light, proceeded
through the intersection, and then pulled over.
[4] As he approached Curry’s truck, the officer noticed that Curry’s license plate
had expired. Curry was upset that he had been pulled over, and the officer
explained that Curry had crossed the center line on Five Points and had just
disregarded the red light at Arlington and Southeastern Avenues. Officer Hatch
asked to see Curry’s license and vehicle registration. Curry told the officer that
his truck was properly registered and he had a valid sticker; however, he refused
to provide his registration to the officer or even look for it in his truck. Curry
provided the officer with a receipt for payment of the registration and told the
officer to go back to his car and run a check to confirm that the registration was
current.
[5] Officer Hatch issued Curry a citation for driving left of center, disregarding a
lighted signal, and failing to carry his registration in his vehicle, all Class C
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1412-IF-859 | December 23, 2015 Page 3 of 5
infractions. After hearing evidence, the trial court issued a judgment against
Curry on all three counts. Curry appeals.
Discussion and Decision
[6] We begin by noting that traffic infractions are civil rather than criminal in
nature, and the State must prove the commission of the infraction by only a
preponderance of the evidence. Rosenbaum v. State, 930 N.E.2d 72, 74 (Ind. Ct.
App. 2010), trans. denied. When reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the
evidence, we will neither reweigh the evidence nor judge the credibility of
witnesses. Id. Rather, we look to the evidence that best supports the judgment
and all reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom. Id. If there is substantial
evidence of probative value supporting the trial court’s judgment, it will not be
overturned. Id.[7] Curry first contends that he did not receive adequate notice of where he
disregarded a lighted signal. Specifically, he contends that he “was unable to
prepare a proper defense to the alleged infraction because Officer Hatch
followed [him] for more than a mile before stopping him . . . [and] he [did not
know] what traffic signal he allegedly disregarded in that mile so that he might
obtain witnesses or other data to disprove the State’s contention.” Appellant’s
Br. p. 5. However, the State correctly points out that at the time the officer
pulled Curry over, the officer told Curry that he had just disregarded the light at
Arlington and Southeastern. Curry therefore knew which traffic signal he had
disregarded so that he could prepare a defense. There is sufficient evidence to
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1412-IF-859 | December 23, 2015 Page 4 of 5
support that Curry received notice of the violation and had ample time to
prepare a defense.
[8] Curry also contends that there is insufficient evidence that he failed to carry his
registration where he told the officer that he had a valid sticker and that the
truck was properly registered. However, as the State points out, Curry was
charged with failing to carry his registration as required by Indiana Code
section 9-18-2-21, not with failing to register the vehicle as required by Indiana
Code section 9-18-2-29. The State also correctly points out that the “evidence is
uncontroverted that [Curry] failed to produce the registration when asked to [do
so].” Appellee’s Br. p. 7. This evidence is sufficient to support the judgment
entered against Curry for failing to carry his registration.
[9] Affirmed.
Bailey, J., and Crone, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1412-IF-859 | December 23, 2015 Page 5 of 5