Jay Lavender v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
45A03-1701-CR-105
| Ind. Ct. App. | Aug 31, 2017Background
- On Aug. 9, 2014, Jay Lavender (tractor-trailer driver) blocked and stopped his truck alongside Ajit Das’s minivan after Das legally exited a gas station onto U.S. 30; Lavender repeatedly honked, yelled, and “lurched” the truck toward Das’s vehicle, coming within inches.
- Hobart officer Christopher Sipes observed and testified Lavender had room to stop safely and that Lavender yelled and moved the truck toward Das; Das was frightened but not injured.
- Lavender was charged with multiple offenses; the trial court granted a directed verdict on intimidation but submitted other charges to the jury.
- Lavender proposed a jury instruction that evidence amounting only to suspicion or mere opportunity is insufficient to convict; the trial court refused it as duplicative of burden/presumption instructions.
- The jury convicted Lavender of Class B misdemeanor reckless operation of a tractor-trailer and acquitted or found not liable on other counts; Lavender moved for JNOV, was denied, and appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether refusing defendant’s proposed "mere suspicion/opportunity" jury instruction was an abuse of discretion | State: trial court’s given burden-of-proof and presumption instructions adequately covered the point | Lavender: instruction necessary to prevent conviction on mere suspicion or opportunity | Court: No abuse—instruction redundant and substance covered by other instructions |
| Whether evidence was sufficient to support conviction for Class B reckless operation of a tractor-trailer | State: evidence showed Lavender recklessly endangered Das by stopping unnecessarily, yelling, and lurching truck toward Das’s vehicle | Lavender: subjective fear and truck movement alone do not prove reckless endangerment beyond reasonable doubt | Court: Evidence sufficient—objective testimony (officer and victim) supports reckless conduct that could have caused serious harm |
Key Cases Cited
- Murray v. State, 798 N.E.2d 895 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) (standards for jury instructions and review)
- Townsend v. State, 934 N.E.2d 118 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (refusal to give duplicative instruction permissible; consider instructions as a whole)
- Rutherford v. State, 866 N.E.2d 867 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (standard for sufficiency review—do not reweigh evidence)
- Humes v. State, 426 N.E.2d 379 (Ind. 1981) (distinguishing recklessness from intent)
- Davis v. State, 13 N.E.3d 500 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) ("endanger" does not require actual harm)
- Beattie v. State, 924 N.E.2d 643 (Ind. 2010) (jury lenity and inconsistent verdicts do not necessarily indicate instruction confusion)