Lock v. State
952 N.E.2d 280
Ind. Ct. App.2011Background
- Lock was convicted of Class D felony operating a vehicle while privileges are suspended, conviction reversed on appeal.
- On June 27, 2009, Lock rode a 2009 Yamaha Zuma at 43 mph on US-24, with no license plate.
- Trooper Nathalang learned Lock’s driving privileges were suspended as a habitual traffic violator.
- Stipulated facts: Zuma has two wheels, 49cc engine, <=2 HP, automatic transmission.
- Trial court found guilt, dropped two motorcycle infractions, sentenced Lock to 180 days and lifelong license suspension.
- Issue on appeal: whether the Zuma qualifies as a motor vehicle under the suspended-licence statute.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is a Zuma a motor vehicle under Indy statute? | Lock argues Zuma is a motorized bicycle, not a motor vehicle. | State contends the vehicle could be a motor vehicle given design and speed. | Zuma not proven a motor vehicle; record insufficient to classify it as a motor vehicle. |
| Must the State prove maximum design speed for motorized bicycles? | State failed to prove Zuma's maximum design speed; element not shown. | State argue proof of speed supports motor vehicle designation. | Court declines to infer design speed; cannot speculate beyond evidence; reversal on this basis. |
| Is the conviction defective for lack of proof of element of offense? | Lock contends record does not establish motor vehicle operation while suspended. | State asserts operation while suspended proven by speed and control of vehicle. | Evidence insufficient to prove element; conviction reversed. |
| Is the statute void for vagueness given lack of maximum design speed definition? | Lock raises vagueness challenge. | State bears burden to prove elements; vagueness not reached if elements unmet. | Not necessary to resolve vagueness; lack of evidence requires reversal. |
Key Cases Cited
- Geljack v. State, 671 N.E.2d 163 (Ind.Ct.App.1996) (burden to prove elements of offense; cannot shift burden to defendant)
- Drane v. State, 867 N.E.2d 144 (Ind.2007) (standard for sufficiency of evidence; defer to fact-finder)
- Annis v. State, 917 N.E.2d 722 (Ind.Ct.App.2009) (relevance of cylinder capacity and speed to motorized bicycle vs motor vehicle)
- Mohamed v. State, 843 N.E.2d 553 (Ind.Ct.App.2006) (avoid addressing vagueness where evidence insufficient)
- Austill v. State, 745 N.E.2d 859 (Ind.Ct.App.2001) (State bears burden to prove every element of offense)