Paul J. Coy v. State of Indiana
2013 Ind. App. LEXIS 622
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- On March 15, 2012, Paul J. Coy raced another car on a rural two‑lane road, reached 106 mph, lost control, and crashed; passenger Darian Hurn later died and two back‑seat passengers (A.K. and Z.M.) suffered serious injuries.
- Coy was charged with Class C felony reckless homicide (death of Hurn) and two counts of criminal recklessness (serious bodily injury to A.K. and Z.M.); he was convicted on all counts.
- Defense requested a lesser‑included instruction for reckless driving as to the reckless homicide count; the trial court denied the instruction. Coy testified at trial and later surrendered after a warrant issued.
- At sentencing the court found as mitigators Coy's minimal criminal history (given little weight) and as aggravators Coy’s violation of a pretrial no‑contact order and the fact there were multiple victims; Coy received the maximum eight‑year term for the Class C felony (concurrent Class D terms).
- Coy appealed, arguing (1) trial court erred by refusing the lesser‑included reckless driving instruction, (2) a fatal variance existed between the charging information and proof, (3) sentencing abuse of discretion in considering/weighting aggravators/mitigators, and (4) aggregate sentence was inappropriate under App. R. 7(B).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Coy) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court erred in refusing lesser‑included instruction for reckless driving | No error — defendant waived by not tendering written/pattern instruction and no serious evidentiary dispute existed to require the instruction | Error — jury should have been able to convict of reckless driving as a lesser‑included offense of reckless homicide | Waiver: Coy failed to tender an instruction; on the merits the court found reckless driving was factually included but no serious evidentiary dispute existed (Hurn’s death was uncontested), so refusing the instruction was not an abuse of discretion |
| Whether there was a fatal variance between charging information and proof on Counts II & III | No — the State permissibly charged under a valid statute applicable to the conduct and the proof corresponded to charged offenses | Yes — Counts were charged under a different subsection than proof suggested (argues potential mismatch) | No fatal variance: the proof matched an applicable statute and defendant was not misled or prejudiced; prosecutor’s charge selection was within discretion |
| Whether trial court abused discretion by treating violation of no‑contact order and multiple victims as aggravators and by underweighting mitigators (victim inducement, minimal history) | Court properly considered valid aggravators; it also considered mitigators but gave them limited weight | Court improperly considered/weighted factors and should have given more weight to lack of criminal history and victim inducement | No abuse of discretion; multiple victims and no‑contact violation were valid aggravators, court considered mitigators (but assigned limited weight); any underweighting did not require resentencing |
| Whether aggregate sentence is inappropriate under App. R. 7(B) | Sentence within statutory range and appropriate given severity and character evidence | Eight‑year term is excessive given minimal prior record and mitigating circumstances | Sentence affirmed: within statutory limits; nature of offense (death and severe injuries from high‑speed racing) and defendant’s post‑release conduct support the sentence |
Key Cases Cited
- Watts v. State, 885 N.E.2d 1228 (Ind. Ct. App.) (framework for lesser‑included offense analysis)
- Wright v. State, 658 N.E.2d 563 (Ind. 1995) (test for determining lesser‑included offenses)
- Webb v. State, 963 N.E.2d 1103 (Ind. 2012) (serious evidentiary dispute standard for lesser‑included instructions)
- Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482 (Ind. 2007) (standards for review of sentencing decisions and abuse of discretion)
- Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219 (Ind. 2008) (purpose and scope of Appellate Rule 7(B) review)