Boss v. State
2012 Ind. App. LEXIS 150
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Boss was convicted at a bench trial of six counts each of class A misdemeanor failure to restrain a dog and class B misdemeanor harboring a non-immunized dog.
- Bales and Wimberly suffered serious, permanent injuries from dog bites alleged to be caused by Boss's dogs.
- Two dogs were kept in a dilapidated fenced area; a third dog was in an unfenced yard with a loose collar.
- Dog vaccination records were unavailable; Boss provided no rabies vaccination tags or certificates.
- The trial court sentenced Boss to one year for each failure-to-restrain count (counts 1–6) and one year consecutive on count 4, plus 180 days on other counts with probation; aggregate two years and 168 days probation.
- Boss appealed, raising sufficiency, double jeopardy, and sentencing challenges.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence | Boss argues no evidence supports failure-to-restrain and harboring. | Boss contends evidence insufficient to prove restraint failure and immunization knowledge. | Evidence sufficient for both offenses; reasonable inferences support restraint and non-immunized harboring. |
| Double jeopardy | Convictions for harboring non-immunized dogs elevated to B misdemeanor overlapped with restraint enhancements. | Enhancements for harboring mirror enhancements for restraint; risk of multiple punishments. | Remanded to vacate harboring (class B) convictions; treat as class C infractions to avoid double jeopardy. |
| Inappropriate sentence | Sentence should be revised to home detention per prosecutor's suggestion. | Sentence appropriate given offense nature and offender; home detention not warranted. | One-year jail terms for each restraint count deemed appropriate; not inappropriate overall. |
| Consecutive sentences | Consecutive sentences violate consecutive-sentencing limits for misdemeanors. | Single episode produced two harms; consecutive sentences permissible. | Consecutive sentences upheld; no constitutional violation; Dunn/related authority cited for misdemeanor context. |
Key Cases Cited
- Drane v. State, 867 N.E.2d 144 (Ind.2007) (sufficiency standard: weigh probative evidence in favor of verdict)
- Buchanan v. State, 956 N.E.2d 124 (Ind.Ct.App.2011) (statutory interpretation favors public convenience; avoid absurd results)
- Plesha v. Edmonds ex rel. Edmonds, 717 N.E.2d 981 (Ind.Ct.App.1999) (restraint requires active control to prevent conduct)
- Lee v. State, 892 N.E.2d 1231 (Ind.2008) (definition of 'same offense' for double jeopardy analysis)
- Richardson v. State, 717 N.E.2d 32 (Ind.1999) (dueling elements and evidentiary overlap considerations)
- Dunn v. State, 900 N.E.2d 1291 (Ind.Ct.App.2009) (consecutive-misdemeanor considerations; limits on application)