Hall v. State
2010 Ind. App. LEXIS 2243
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2010Background
- Albert Hall was convicted of operating a motor vehicle as an HTV, a Class D felony, after a jury trial in Indiana.
- At trial Hall did not dispute HTV status or driving at the time of stop, but claimed he did not know his license was suspended.
- Hall alleged BMV notice was not received and the address in BMV records was allegedly misspelled, causing lack of knowledge.
- Trial Instruction 5 stated the state must prove Hall operated a vehicle after suspension and that he knew or should have known of the suspension.
- Hall did not object to the instruction or offer an alternative; the jury found him guilty, and the verdict was appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the mens rea instruction was fundamental error. | Hall argues the instruction allowed lesser mens rea than required. | State concedes error but claims waiver due to no objection. | Fundamental error; instruction improper and reversal warranted. |
Key Cases Cited
- Metcalfe v. State, 715 N.E.2d 1236 (Ind. 1999) (conviction invalid if instructed on lesser mens rea)
- Wilson v. State, 644 N.E.2d 555 (Ind. 1994) (fundamental error for lesser mens rea instruction)
- Beasley v. State, 643 N.E.2d 346 (Ind. 1994) (instruction error of lesser mens rea raises fundamental error)
- Greer v. State, 643 N.E.2d 324 (Ind. 1994) (same principle on mens rea sufficiency)
- Simmons v. State, 642 N.E.2d 511 (Ind. 1994) (reaffirmed standard for mens rea instruction error)
- Ramsey v. State, 723 N.E.2d 869 (Ind. 2000) (whether mens rea instructions adequately inform jury)
- Yerden v. State, 682 N.E.2d 1283 (Ind. 1997) (instruction error centrality may affect outcome)
- Swallows v. State, 674 N.E.2d 1317 (Ind. 1996) (instructional error evaluated in context of mens rea)
- Stewart v. State, 721 N.E.2d 876 (Ind. 1999) (historical basis for mens rea in HTV statute)