As reported here (2nd case) in the ILB, the Court of Appeals yesterday decided the case of Michael Armstrong v. State of Indiana, where the issue was: When a passenger jumped from defendant Armstrong’s moving vehicle and was injured as a result, was Armstrong involved in an accident for purposes of IC 9-26-1-1, triggering the duties under that statute?
"Charges dropped in fatal accident" is the headline to a report on the decision today in the Evansville Courier & Press. The lead paragraphs, which pretty much encapsulate the entire decision in a nutshell:
In May 2003, when Michael C. Armstrong failed to stop his car after his teenage passenger, Craig Mobley, fell from the moving vehicle and died, the 23-year-old Armstrong was charged with leaving the scene of a fatal accident.The Courier & Press report concludes:But Armstrong's attorney, Ivan Arnaez, argued that while his client may have had a "moral duty" to stop at the scene, he didn't have a legal duty to do so, because what happened that day didn't constitute an "accident" under strict interpretation of Indiana law. He moved for the felony charge to be dismissed. On Tuesday, the Indiana Court of Appeals agreed with Arnaez, ruling that the charge against Armstrong should be dropped, but also ruling that anyone caught in a similar situation in the future could be charged with a crime.
In essence, the ruling means that while the appeals court believes the charge against Armstrong should be dropped, it also believes Indiana law should be interpreted broadly enough to allow prosecutors to bring charges if a similar scenario were to arise in the future. The Indiana attorney general, who argued against Arnaez's motion, has 30 days to consider whether to appeal the ruling.Posted by Marcia Oddi at November 24, 2004 10:52 AM