Basil C. Halkides v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

FILED MEMORANDUM DECISION May 24 2016, 9:25 am

CLERK Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), Indiana Supreme Court Court of Appeals this Memorandum Decision shall not be and Tax Court

regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE David Paul Allen Gregory F. Zoeller Hammond, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana

Angela N. Sanchez Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Basil C. Halkides, May 24, 2016 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Cause No. 45A03-1511-IF-2077 v. Appeal from the Lake Superior Court State of Indiana, The Honorable Nicholas J. Appellee-Plaintiff. Schiralli, Judge The Honorable Catheron Paras, Magistrate Trial Court Cause No. 45D07-1504-IF-3754

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 45A03-1511-IF-2077 | May 24, 2016 Page 1 of 5

Barnes, Judge.

Case Summary [1] Basil Halkides appeals the trial court’s finding that he disregarded a traffic light,

a Class C infraction. We reverse.

Issue [2] The dispositive issue is whether the State’s evidence was sufficient to prove

Halkides disregarded a traffic signal.

Facts [3] On April 17, 2015, Halkides drove eastbound into an intersection in Lake

County. The traffic at that intersection was controlled by traffic lights, and

Halkides observed that the light directing him was yellow. Halkides testified, “I

never saw the light being red. I saw it only as yellow when I went into the

intersection.” Tr. p. 13. A vehicle travelling westbound through the same

intersection turned left and struck the driver’s side of Halkides’s vehicle. [4] Munster Police Officer Gabe Isenblatter responded to the accident and later

cited Halkides for disregarding the traffic control device in violation of Indiana

Code Section 9-21-3-7. Officer Isenblatter testified he wrote the citation based

on something a witness at the scene of the accident said. That witness did not

testify at Halkides’s trial.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 45A03-1511-IF-2077 | May 24, 2016 Page 2 of 5 [5] On September 22, 2015, Halkides was tried in a bench trial. The trial court

found Halkides guilty of the infraction, fined him $10.00, and assessed court

costs. Halkides appeals.

Analysis1 [6] Traffic infractions are civil in nature. Rosenbaum v. State, 930 N.E.2d 72, 74

(Ind. Ct. App. 2010), trans. denied. As such, the State must prove the

commission of an infraction by a preponderance of the evidence. Id.

When reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we will neither reweigh the evidence nor judge the credibility of witnesses. Rather, we look to the evidence that best supports the judgment and all reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom. If there is substantial evidence of probative value supporting the trial court’s judgment, it will not be overturned.

Id. [7] Halkides contends the evidence is not sufficient to prove he committed an

infraction defined by Indiana Code Section 9-21-3-7. He further contends the

trial court abused its discretion by admitting into evidence hearsay and opinion

testimony. The State concedes that, “[t]he evidence did not establish that

1 Halkides notes some confusion related to the date on which the trial court’s judgment was entered in the Chronological Case Summary and contends he timely filed his Notice of Appeal. The State does not argue Halkides’s Notice of Appeal was untimely. We have reviewed the Chronological Case Summary and the trial court’s order and conclude it is not necessary to address this issue.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 45A03-1511-IF-2077 | May 24, 2016 Page 3 of 5

Halkides committed the infraction,” and “acknowledges that this Court should

reverse the judgment of the trial court.” Appellee’s Br. pp. 6-7. [8] In sum, the portions of Indiana Code Section 9-21-3-7 relevant to this matter

explain the meaning of the green, yellow, and red lights in a traffic signal and

set out the actions that are prohibited by vehicular traffic when those lights are

displayed. “Vehicular traffic facing a steady circular yellow or yellow arrow

signal is warned that the related green movement is being terminated and that a

red indication will be exhibited immediately thereafter.” Ind. Code § 9-21-3-

7(b)(2)(A). Except as otherwise provided, “vehicular traffic facing a steady

circular red or red arrow signal shall stop at a clearly marked stop line.” I.C. §

9-21-3-7(b)(3)(A). A person who violates Indiana Code Section 9-21-3-7

commits a Class C infraction. I.C. § 9-21-3-11. [9] The uncontroverted evidence is that Halkides entered the intersection while the

traffic signal light was yellow. Although Officer Isenblatter testified he wrote

Halkides’s citation based on a witness’s statement, that witness did not testify.

Entering an intersection when a traffic light is yellow is not prohibited by

Indiana Code Section 9-21-3-7. [10] Because the State concedes the sufficiency issue, and because we agree there is

no evidence of probative value to support the trial court’s judgment, we do not

reach Halkides’s evidentiary issue. Instead, we reverse the judgment of the trial

court.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 45A03-1511-IF-2077 | May 24, 2016 Page 4 of 5

Conclusion [11] The State’s evidence was not sufficient to support the finding that Halkides

committed a Class C infraction. We reverse. [12] Reversed.

Vaidik, C.J., and Mathias, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 45A03-1511-IF-2077 | May 24, 2016 Page 5 of 5