Bradley A. Bible v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
20A03-1608-CR-1897
| Ind. Ct. App. | May 10, 2017Background
- On January 26, 2015, Bradley A. Bible was involved in a moped collision; deputies detected alcohol odor, a positive preliminary breath test, failed HGN, and a hospital blood draw later showed BAC over .08.
- The State initially charged Bible with OWI as a Class A misdemeanor and OWI with a prior as a Level 6 felony; trial was set for March 21, 2016.
- On the morning of trial the State amended the information to charge Operating with Specified Amount of Alcohol (BAC ≥ .08 but < .15) as a Class C misdemeanor; the court allowed the amendment and Bible did not object on the record.
- At trial the parties stipulated to the toxicology/blood result; the jury convicted Bible of the Class C misdemeanor, then in an enhancement phase convicted him of OWI as a Level 6 felony; the sentences were merged and Bible received 540 days.
- On appeal Bible challenged (1) the amendment of the charging information, (2) the verdict form submitted to the jury, and (3) ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failing to object to the amendment, stipulating to the blood test, and not objecting to the verdict form.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Bible) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court erred in allowing amendment of charging information | Amendment was permissible and Bible waived any challenge by not objecting; no fundamental error shown | Amendment changed elements and prejudiced defense; should have been disallowed | Amendment allowed; waiver noted but court considered ineffective assistance claim and found no prejudice |
| Whether verdict form was defective | Verdict form need not recite elements; jury was properly instructed so form was sufficient | Form omitted elements, could confuse jury and render verdict unreliable | Verdict form was not deficient; no reversal warranted |
| Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to object to amendment or move for continuance | No record evidence counsel’s performance was deficient or prejudicial; continuance outcome speculative | Failure to object/seek continuance deprived Bible of ability to prepare; stipulation to blood test foreclosed challenge | Ineffective assistance not shown: no deficient performance or reasonable probability of different outcome |
| Whether counsel was ineffective for stipulating to blood test or not objecting to verdict form | Stipulation and no objection were reasonable trial decisions; Bible identified no flaw in test or chain of custody | Stipulation removed State’s burden to prove BAC and prevented defense challenge | Counsel’s actions were not shown to be deficient or prejudicial; claim fails |
Key Cases Cited
- Wilson v. State, 931 N.E.2d 914 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (failure to request continuance after pretrial substantive amendment results in waiver)
- Womack v. State, 738 N.E.2d 320 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000) (verdict form that effectively mandates conviction on an element not proved can require reversal)
- Rowan v. State, 431 N.E.2d 805 (Ind. 1982) (general verdicts are permissible; verdict need not recite every element)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance: deficient performance and prejudice)
- Erkins v. State, 13 N.E.3d 400 (Ind. 2014) (amendment of information is one of form if defense under original information remains equally available)