[APPEALS] Singh v. State, 23A-CR-2453

Jaspreet Singh was driving his semi-truck on US Highway 35 South when he missed his exit onto US Highway 24 at Anoka interchange. Singh stopped his semi-truck, activated his hazard lights, and began reversing his semi-truck. A moment later, Jamie Pay slammed her black Chevy Equinox SUV into the rear of Singh's semi-truck and instantly died. Singh called 911 to report the accident, but due to his minimal proficiency in English, he passed the phone to a passerby who had stopped to check out the accident. Sergeant Patrick Zeider arrived on the scene and took Singh's statement. Pay's cellular phone was recovered from the debris. An analyst recovered data from Snapchat and determined that Pay received, read, and responded to a Snapchat message right before the impact that led to her death. The State charged Singh with Level 5 felony reckless homicide. A jury found Singh guilty. Singh appealed, arguing that the trial court committed reversible error when it excluded relevant evidence showing that Pay was using Snapchat to send and receive messages on her phone and was thus distracted around the time her SUV collided with Singh's semi-truck. This court found that the trial court erred in excluding the evidence, and subsequently, reversed and remanded for a new trial. The second trial was held, and the jury found Singh guilty. The trial court sentenced Singh to four years, executed in the Indiana Department of Correction. Singh now appeals. Singh claims that the State failed to prove that Singh's actions were the proximate cause of Pay's death, arguing that Pay's inattention as evidenced by her use of her cell phone and excessive speed were the causes of the accident. Singh further asserts that his conduct was not reckless because he slowed down, stopped his truck, activated his flashers and began backing up very slowly on the multi-lane road that had sparse traffic during daylight hours. With respect to his sentence, Singh argues that the trial court abused its discretion because it improperly aggravated his sentence based on his religious beliefs and his justifiable claim of innocence. Finally, Singh contends that his four year sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and his character.

The scheduled panelists are Judge Bailey, Judge May, and Judge Foley.