Full Opinion

IN THE Court of Appeals of Indiana Layke D. Leonard, FILED Appellant-Defendant Sep 16 2026, 8:43 am CLERK Indiana Supreme Court Court of Appeals v. and Tax Court State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff September 16, 2026 Court of Appeals Case No. 26A-IF-365 Appeal from Henry Circuit Court The Honorable David L. McCord, Judge Trial Court Cause No. 33C03-2510-IF-3889 Opinion by Judge May Judges Pyle and Scheele concur. Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 26A-IF-365 | September 16, 2026 Page 1 of 4 May, Judge. [1] Around 4:30 a.m. on October 6, 2025, Officer Eric Jackson observed a car driven by Layke D. Leonard “peel out” and heard Leonard’s tires squeal as he departed from a nearby traffic light. (Tr. Vol. II at 7.) Officer Jackson pulled over Leonard’s vehicle and cited Leonard for an unsafe start under Indiana Code section 9-21-8-23. After a bench trial, the trial court found Leonard made an unsafe start as alleged and ordered him to pay a $1.00 fine and $139.50 in court costs. Because the evidence was insufficient as a matter of law to meet the definition of unsafe start, we reverse. Discussion and Decision [2] Leonard argues the State did not present sufficient evidence that he made an unsafe start under Indiana Code section 9-21-8-23. An infraction is a civil matter, and thus the State need only prove the respondent committed the infraction by a preponderance of the evidence. Ind. Code § 34-28-5-1(d). However, we review a sufficiency challenge under the same standard as we do a criminal case, that is, we consider only the evidence and reasonable inferences that support the verdict. Hall v. State, 177 N.E.3d 1183, 1191 (Ind. 2021). The evidence need not overcome every reasonable hypothesis of innocence, and we do not reweigh the evidence or reassess witness credibility. Drane v. State, 867 N.E.2d 144, 146 (Ind. 2007). [3] To prove Leonard committed an unsafe start, the State had to provide evidence that he started his vehicle before doing so could be “made with reasonable Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 26A-IF-365 | September 16, 2026 Page 2 of 4 safety.” Ind. Code § 9-21-8-23. Leonard does not deny that his tires squealed. Leonard argues the State did not prove he unsafely left the intersection and relies on two cases that addressed the same question – Dora v. State, 736 N.E.2d 1254 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000), trans. denied, and Beasey v. State, 823 N.E.2d 759 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005). [4] In Dora, we held that Dora’s spinning and squealing tires did not prove he committed a Class C infraction for an unsafe start absent evidence his action threatened himself or others. Dora, 736 N.E.2d at 1257. In Beasey, we noted the holding in Dora but distinguished the facts in that case because Beasey’s vehicle fishtailed out of a parking lot while his tires spun and squealed. Beasey, 823 N.E.2d at 761. We held the additional act of fishtailing proved that Beasey was not in control of the vehicle and thus was dangerous to himself or others. Id. at 762. [5] Here, Officer Jackson testified that he initiated a traffic stop after he observed Leonard’s tires squeal when a stop light turned green. (Tr. Vol. II at 7.) He indicated that, in his experience, when tires squeal, they have lost traction with the road, causing an unsafe condition. However, Officer Jackson did not indicate Leonard’s vehicle moved erratically or in a dangerous manner. Based on Dora, without evidence beyond squealing tires, the State did not present sufficient evidence that Leonard committed the Class C infraction of making an unsafe start. Therefore, Leonard’s conviction cannot stand. Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 26A-IF-365 | September 16, 2026 Page 3 of 4 Conclusion [6] The State did not present sufficient evidence that Leonard made an unsafe start in violation of Indiana Code section 9-21-8-23. Accordingly, we reverse his conviction. [7] Reversed. Pyle, J., and Scheele, J., concur. ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT Nathan Vining Vining Legal LLC Indianapolis, Indiana ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE Theodore E. Rokita Indiana Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana J.T. Whitehead Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 26A-IF-365 | September 16, 2026 Page 4 of 4