James D. Foutch v. State of Indiana
2016 Ind. App. LEXIS 141
Ind. Ct. App.2016Background
- On April 6, 2014 James D. Foutch, an off-duty Edgewood police officer, was driving an SUV at 92 mph and rear-ended a Buick driven by Rebecca Sperry; her husband Jesse died and Rebecca and their newborn suffered serious injuries.
- Trooper Quakenbush, a Drug Recognition Expert, observed slurred speech, administered field tests which Foutch failed, and opined Foutch was impaired after ingesting prescribed hydrocodone and non‑prescribed Xanax. Crash data showed no braking or swerving prior to impact.
- Foutch was charged with multiple counts including reckless homicide (Class C) and criminal recklessness inflicting serious bodily injury (Class D); he pled guilty to those two counts and the State dismissed the remainder.
- At sentencing the trial court imposed the statutory maximums: 8 years (Class C) with 7 executed and 1 year suspended; 3 years (Class D) with 1 executed and 2 suspended; sentences to run consecutively for an 11‑year aggregate (8 years executed).
- The court considered both aggravating factors (severity of injuries, Foutch’s driving history, off‑duty status as a police officer, lack of insurance) and mitigating factors (guilty plea, expressed remorse) and affirmed the sentence on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Foutch’s 11‑year aggregate sentence is inappropriate under Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B) | State: Sentence is appropriate given high speed, impairment, catastrophic injuries/death, prior driving history, lack of insurance, and breach of duty as an officer | Foutch: Sentence is inappropriate—characterizes conduct as ordinary driving recklessness and urges leniency given remorse and lack of malicious intent | Court affirmed: sentence not inappropriate considering nature of offense and offender’s character, including repeated reckless driving and severe harm caused |
Key Cases Cited
- Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219 (Ind. 2008) (standard for appellate review of sentence under Rule 7(B))
- Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482 (Ind. 2007) (abuse‑of‑discretion and aggravated/mitigating factor analysis at sentencing)
- Barker v. State, 994 N.E.2d 306 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (clarifies Rule 7(B) in terms of inappropriateness review)
- King v. State, 894 N.E.2d 265 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (defendant bears burden to show sentence inappropriate)