Legal Opinion · Dissent

Crawley v. State

Indiana Court of Appeals

Decided February 9, 2010No. 49A05-0905-CR-280Published

1DissentRiley, Judge

I respectfully dissent. The majority makes light of the fact that no eye witness ever placed Crawley in the driver's seat of the car. Appellate cases dealing with the sufficiency of the evidence to prove operation of a vehicle usually include fact patterns where a witness has found the defendant in the driver's seat of the vehicle alleged to have been operated. See, e.g., Parks v. State, 752 N.E.2d 63 (Ind.Ct.App.2001); Clark v. State, 611 N.E.2d 181 (Ind.Ct.App.1993), trans. denied; Hiegel v. State, 588 N.E.2d 265 (Ind.Ct.App.1989). Indeed, "where the defendant has been found asleep with the…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Clark v. StateIndiana Court of Appeals · 1993
  2. Parks v. StateIndiana Court of Appeals · 2001
  3. Copas v. StateIndiana Court of Appeals · 2008

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

Powered by the Exa API