Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Minix v. State

Indiana Court of Appeals

Decided April 11, 2000No. 20A05-9905-CR-201Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partSullivan, Judge

The majority affirms the conviction for causing death by operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated, but in consideration of double jeopardy prohibitions, orders the trial court to vacate the conviction for causing death by operating a motor vehicle with a BAC of at least .10 percent. I would do precisely the reverse and would affirm the BAC — death conviction and order the driving while intoxicated conviction vacated.

Our cases concerning employment of an alcohol blood test result as prima facie evidence of intoxication are not in harmony. In Warner v. State (1986) Ind.App., 497 N.E.2d 259,…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Warner v. StateIndiana Court of Appeals · 1986
  2. Clark v. StateIndiana Court of Appeals · 1987
  3. Boyd v. StateIndiana Court of Appeals · 1988
  4. Liquori v. StateIndiana Court of Appeals · 1989
  5. Geyer v. StateIndiana Court of Appeals · 1988

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API