Brian L. Paquette v. State of Indiana
2017 Ind. App. LEXIS 267
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- On Feb. 12, 2016, Brian Paquette, high on methamphetamine, drove the wrong way on I-69, collided with two vehicles, killing three people and seriously injuring a fourth.
- The State charged Paquette with three sets of counts—one set per deceased victim—each including: resisting law enforcement by fleeing in a vehicle causing death (Level 3), operating a vehicle with methamphetamine in his blood causing death (Level 4), and reckless homicide (Level 5). Additional counts addressed the injured victim and possession.
- Paquette pled guilty to all counts but reserved the right to challenge entry of multiple resisting convictions, arguing the conduct constituted a single act of resisting.
- The trial court entered three convictions and consecutive 16-year sentences on the resisting counts (merging the other counts), producing a total of 50.5 years, but allowed Paquette to appeal the resisting-claim ruling.
- The Court of Appeals reviewed statutory interpretation de novo and considered whether multiple resisting convictions are permissible when a single act causes multiple deaths.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Indiana's resisting-law-enforcement statute permits multiple convictions when one act of resisting causes multiple deaths | The State argued the statute can support multiple resisting convictions where a single act injures or kills multiple people | Paquette argued that resisting is an interference with government authority (a single act) so only one resisting conviction may be entered absent multiple incidents | The court held only one resisting conviction is permissible for a single act of resisting; remanded to replace two resisting convictions with convictions under the operating-with-methamphetamine-causing-death statute and resentence |
Key Cases Cited
- Armstead v. State, 549 N.E.2d 400 (Ind. Ct. App. 1990) (holding a single incident of resisting yields at most one resisting conviction)
- Lewis v. State, 43 N.E.3d 689 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (reaffirming single-conviction rule for resisting where conduct was one incident)
- Whaley v. State, 843 N.E.2d 1 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (panel affirmed multiple resisting convictions where two officers were injured; court here disagreed with any broad statutory reading permitting multiple convictions)
- Kelly v. State, 527 N.E.2d 1148 (Ind. Ct. App. 1988) (related precedent on multiple-victim convictions under intoxication statutes)
- Mathews v. State, 849 N.E.2d 578 (Ind. 2006) (discussing legislative responses to multi-victim conviction issues)