Islom Niyozov v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

• Court: Indiana Court of Appeals
• Decided: September 27, 2018
• Docket: 18A-IF-853
• Status: Published

Opinion

MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED regarded as precedent or cited before any Sep 27 2018, 7:28 am

court except for the purpose of establishing CLERK Indiana Supreme Court the defense of res judicata, collateral Court of Appeals and Tax Court estoppel, or the law of the case.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Evelyn Lecia Keaton Curtis T. Hill, Jr. Law Office of Evelyn Keaton Attorney General of Indiana Indianapolis, Indiana Ellen H. Meilaender Supervising Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Islom Niyozov, September 27, 2018 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 18A-IF-853 v. Appeal from the Whitley Superior Court State of Indiana, The Honorable Douglas M. Fahl, Appellee-Plaintiff. Judge Trial Court Cause No. 92D01-1709-IF-3132

Najam, Judge.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-IF-853 | September 27, 2018 Page 1 of 6 Statement of the Case [1] Islom Niyozov appeals the trial court’s infraction judgment entered against him

for disregarding a red traffic signal following a bench trial. He presents two

issues for our review:

1. Whether Indiana Code Section 9-21-3-7 applies to traffic signals located at intersections.

2. Whether the State presented sufficient evidence to support the infraction judgment.

[2] We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History [3] On September 4, 2017, Indiana State Troopers Aaron Cook and Todd Reed

were monitoring the intersection of State Road 109 and U.S. 30 in Whitley

County when Trooper Reed saw Niyozov, who was driving a semi-truck, drive

through the intersection against a red traffic signal. Trooper Reed radioed

Trooper Cook, who was parked “a couple hundred feet” past the intersection

on S.R. 109, and told him to stop the truck. Tr. at 5. Trooper Cook, who could

see the intersection from his location but could not tell from his vantage point

what color the traffic signal was when vehicles entered the intersection,

immediately identified the truck, initiated a traffic stop, and confirmed with

Trooper Reed that he was stopping the correct truck. After Niyozov stopped

his truck, Trooper Cook issued him a citation for running the red traffic signal.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-IF-853 | September 27, 2018 Page 2 of 6 [4] At a bench trial on March 21, 2018, Niyozov argued that he could not be cited

for the infraction under Indiana Code Section 9-21-3-7 because, he asserted, it

does not apply to traffic signals at intersections. The trial court rejected that

argument and entered the infraction judgment. This appeal ensued.

Discussion and Decision Issue One: Indiana Code Section 9-21-3-7

[5] Niyozov first contends that Indiana Code Section 9-21-3-7 (“the statute”)

cannot support an infraction judgment for disregarding a red traffic signal at an

intersection. The statute provides in relevant part as follows:

[(b)](3) Steady red indication [on a traffic signal] means the following:

(A) Except as provided in clauses (B) and (D), vehicular traffic facing a steady circular red or red arrow signal shall stop at a clearly marked stop line. However, if there is no clearly marked stop line, vehicular traffic shall stop before entering the crosswalk on the near side of the intersection. If there is no crosswalk, vehicular traffic shall stop before entering the intersection and shall remain standing until an indication to proceed is shown.

***

(5) This section applies to traffic control signals located at a place other than an intersection. A stop required under this subdivision must be made at the signal, except when the signal is supplemented by a sign or pavement marking indicating where the stop must be made.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-IF-853 | September 27, 2018 Page 3 of 6 Ind. Code § 9-21-3-7 (2018) (emphases added). Niyozov contends that, because

subsection (b)(5) states that “This section” applies to traffic control signals

located at a place other than an intersection, that means the entire statute is

inapplicable to traffic control signals located at an intersection. We cannot

agree.

[6] Our first task when interpreting a statute is to give its words their plain meaning

and consider the structure of the statute as a whole. ESPN, Inc. v. Univ. of Notre

Dame Police Dep’t., 62 N.E.3d 1192, 1195 (Ind. 2016). “We ‘avoid

interpretations that depend on selective reading of individual words that lead to

irrational and disharmonizing results.’” Id. (quoting West v. Office of Ind. Sec’y of

State, 54 N.E.3d 349, 355 (Ind. 2016)). As we interpret the statute, we are

mindful of both what it does say and what it does not say. Id. (citation

omitted).

[7] Here, subsection (b)(3)(A) of the statute clearly applies where, as here, a vehicle

disregards a red traffic signal at an intersection. However, subsection (b)(5)

clearly applies only where a traffic signal is located “at a place other than an

intersection.” I.C. § 9-21-3-7. It would be irrational to read subsection (b)(5) as

nullifying subsection (b)(3)(A). It is clear that subsection (b)(5) was merely

unartfully drafted,1 and we interpret that subsection to be the only part of the

1 Rather than stating “This section,” it should perhaps state “This paragraph of subsection (b).”

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-IF-853 | September 27, 2018 Page 4 of 6 statute that applies to a place other than an intersection. Accordingly, the State

properly issued the citation to Niyozov.

Issue Two: Sufficiency of the Evidence

[8] Niyozov contends that the State presented insufficient evidence to support the

infraction judgment. Traffic infractions are civil, rather than criminal, in nature

and the State must prove the commission of the infraction by only a

preponderance of the evidence. Rosenbaum v. State, 930 N.E.2d 72, 74 (Ind. Ct.

App. 2010), trans. denied. When reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the

evidence, we will neither reweigh the evidence nor judge the credibility of

witnesses. Id. Rather, we look to the evidence that best supports the judgment

and all reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom. Id. If there is substantial

evidence of probative value supporting the trial court’s judgment, it will not be

overturned. Id.

[9] Without citation to authority, Niyozov asserts that, “in a traffic case, for a

conviction to be valid, the citing officer must witness the violation itself and

identify the vehicle involved and the driver of the vehicle at the time of the

violation.” Appellant’s Br. at 10. In essence, he maintains that the State

presented insufficient evidence here because Trooper Cook, who issued the

citation, had not witnessed the infraction, but relied on Trooper Reed’s report

that Niyozov had disregarded the red traffic signal. We cannot agree.

[10] Both Trooper Cook and Trooper Reed testified at Niyozov’s bench trial.

Trooper Reed testified that he saw Niyozov disregard the red traffic signal, and

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-IF-853 | September 27, 2018 Page 5 of 6 Trooper Reed immediately notified Trooper Cook, who could see the truck

approaching him from the intersection. Trooper Cook initiated a traffic stop,

confirmed with Trooper Reed that he was stopping the right truck, and issued

the citation to Niyozov. Trooper Reed testified that he had “no doubt” that

Trooper Cook had stopped the same truck Trooper Reed had seen run the red

light. Tr. at 10. The State presented sufficient evidence to support Niyozov’s

infraction judgment.

[11] Affirmed.

Crone, J., and Pyle, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-IF-853 | September 27, 2018 Page 6 of 6