Anastacia Sanchez-Franco v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
03A04-1610-CR-2279
| Ind. Ct. App. | Feb 28, 2017Background
- On June 14, 2015, Officer Crabtree stopped Anastacia Sanchez-Franco for driving left of center, detected alcohol odor, administered SFSTs which she failed, and transported her for a certified breath test.
- Officer Charles Sims administered an Intox EC/IR-II breath test at the Columbus PD; the printout showed a result of 0.099 g/210L.
- The State charged Sanchez-Franco with OWI endangering (Class A misdemeanor) and operating with an alcohol concentration ≥ .08 (Class C misdemeanor).
- After a suppression hearing (motion denied), a bench trial found her not guilty on Count I and guilty on Count II; she received a 60-day sentence suspended to probation.
- At trial defense counsel objected to foundation for admitting the breath result (uncertainty about the specific instrument/foundation); the State introduced officer certification, instrument inspection certificate, and the instrument printout.
- Officer Sims testified he followed standard procedures, observed the 15-minute observation period, removed gum before observation, and that the machine recorded two samples and reported the lower (.099).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion in admitting the breath-test results | State: foundation adequate—officer certified, instrument certified, regs are judicially noticed; trial evidence supports procedure compliance | Sanchez-Franco: State failed to establish required procedure/that officer followed 260 IAC 2-4-2 (esp. Step One observation about eating/drinking/smoking) | Court affirmed admission: defendant waived some procedural challenge; administrative regulations are judicially noticed; record showed officer followed required steps and printout supported reliability |
Key Cases Cited
- Roche v. State, 690 N.E.2d 1115 (Ind. 1997) (standard of review for evidentiary rulings)
- Joyner v. State, 678 N.E.2d 386 (Ind. 1997) (reversal standard for abuse of discretion)
- Barker v. State, 695 N.E.2d 925 (Ind. 1998) (affirmance permitted if any record basis supports evidentiary ruling)
- Fox v. State, 717 N.E.2d 957 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999) (harmless error doctrine for evidentiary rulings)
- Mullins v. State, 646 N.E.2d 40 (Ind. 1995) (court must take judicial notice of breath-test regulations; failure to object on specific grounds waives issue)
- Baran v. State, 639 N.E.2d 642 (Ind. 1994) (bench trial and judicial notice of breath-testing requirements; sufficiency of evidence officer followed procedure)