State of Indiana v. Justin Bazan
2015 Ind. App. LEXIS 707
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Bazan had a May 20, 2014 New York conviction for operating a motor vehicle while ability impaired (N.Y. VTL § 1192.1).
- On February 27, 2015 Indiana charged Bazan with multiple offenses, including two Level 6 felony counts enhancement for prior OUI convictions within five years (Counts IV and V).
- Bazan moved to dismiss the two enhanced felony counts, arguing the New York conviction was not "substantially similar" to Indiana OWI offenses and thus could not be used as a prior conviction to enhance the charges.
- The trial court granted Bazan’s motion and dismissed the enhanced counts; the State obtained interlocutory certification and appealed.
- The Court of Appeals reviewed whether the New York offense elements were substantially similar to Indiana Code §§ 9-30-5-1 through 9-30-5-9 and affirmed the dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Bazan) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Bazan’s NY conviction qualifies as a "previous conviction of operating while intoxicated" under I.C. § 9-13-2-130(2) (i.e., elements are "substantially similar") | NY offense (ability impaired) is substantially similar to Indiana’s OWI (Class C misdemeanor) because both require proof of impairment | NY statute requires only some impairment and does not require the greater showing of an "impaired condition of thought and action and loss of normal control" required by Indiana law | Court held the NY offense is not substantially similar; dismissal of enhanced counts affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Davis, 898 N.E.2d 281 (Ind. 2008) (abuse of discretion governs appellate review of dismissal of charging information)
- State v. Akins, 824 N.E.2d 676 (Ind. 2005) (Michigan DUI statute found substantially similar to Indiana OWI statute in that case)
- Pavlovich v. State, 6 N.E.3d 969 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (standard for abuse of discretion)
- People v. McDonald, 811 N.Y.S.2d 492 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006) (conviction under VTL § 1192.1 requires proof of some impairment, not intoxication)
- People v. McNamara, 704 N.Y.S.2d 100 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000) (distinguishes "ability impaired" from "intoxicated"; intoxication requires inability to employ expected physical and mental abilities to operate a vehicle)