Boston v. State
2011 Ind. App. LEXIS 630
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Boston was arrested on Oct 11, 2009 for suspected operating a vehicle while intoxicated and requested a blood alcohol test.
- Blood was drawn at Hendricks Regional Health Hospital by phlebotomist Cannon, with hospital procedures allegedly followed.
- The State charged Boston with related offenses and later amended to add a BAC≥.15 count, with license suspension ordered.
- Boston moved to suppress the blood test results, asserting lack of physician-directed protocol in the collection.
- A suppression hearing was held; Cannon testified about training and hospital protocol, and the court denied suppression on July 16, 2010.
- The Indiana Court of Appeals granted interlocutory review to consider retroactive application of 2010 statutory amendments to 9-30-6-6.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 2010 amendments may be retroactively applied | Boston argues the 2010 amendments should not apply retroactively to the 2009 arrest. | State asserts amendments are remedial and proper to apply retroactively to admissibility. | Remedial amendments retroactively applied. |
| Whether the foundational requirements for admission were satisfied | Boston contends the blood draw lacked physician-directed protocol under the statute in effect at arrest. | State shows hospital protocol and trained personnel satisfied the statute's requirements. | Foundational requirements satisfied; admission upheld. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bourbon Mini-Mart, Inc. v. Gast Fuel and Services, Inc., 783 N.E.2d 253 (Ind. 2003) (retroactivity of remedial statutes permitted when intent favors remedy)
- Brown v. State, 911 N.E.2d 668 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (remedial amendments to 9-30-6-6(j) after Brown; retroactivity questioned)
- Brown v. State, 912 N.E.2d 881 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (ex post facto considerations for procedural/remedial changes)
- Combs v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1252 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (foundation for blood draw requires physician directions or protocol)
- Hopkins v. State, 579 N.E.2d 1297 (Ind. 1991) (technical adherence to physician directions or protocol for admission)
- Abney v. State, 811 N.E.2d 415 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (implied consent statutes and public safety rationale)