Byron Early v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
87A01-1604-CR-992
| Ind. Ct. App. | Dec 20, 2016Background
- On Aug. 5, 2015, Warrick County Deputy Daniel Bullock stopped Byron Early after observing a vehicle matching a dispatch, confirming the plate, and testifying he saw the vehicle run a red light; the deputy smelled alcohol and observed bloodshot, glassy eyes.
- Deputy Bullock found beer in the car, performed standardized field sobriety tests (HGN, walk-and-turn, one-leg stand), which Early failed, and then read implied-consent warnings and obtained breath samples.
- Breath test printout reflected observation entries beginning 12:41 a.m., breath samples at 1:00 and 1:03 a.m., and a result of 0.129 g/210L.
- The State charged Early with operating with an alcohol concentration (ACE) of .08 or higher (Ind. Code § 9-30-5-1) and operating while intoxicated; Early was tried in a bench trial, convicted, counts merged, and sentenced to 60 days suspended to six months probation.
- Early challenged admissibility of the breath test (contending insufficient 15-minute observation) and challenged sufficiency of evidence; trial court admitted the breath results and convicted; on appeal the court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Was the traffic stop lawful? | State: Deputy reasonably suspected traffic violation (ran a red light) so stop valid. | Early: Deputy lacked reasonable suspicion; testimony about red light was inconsistent. | Held: Stop was lawful. Officer's on-the-spot evaluation supported the stop (Meredith). |
| 2. Was the EC/IR II breath test properly admitted given 15-minute observation rule? | State: Deputy observed Early for the required period and controlled him; printout and testimony support compliance. | Early: Printout times suggested only 8 minutes between events and inconsistent testimony undermines reliability. | Held: Admission was not an abuse of discretion; record supports compliance with 15-minute requirement. |
| 3. Were volunteer statements admissible absent Miranda? | State: Any error admitting statements was harmless to the ACE conviction. | Early: Deputy’s testimony about statements should be excluded for Miranda violation. | Held: Even if erroneous, admission was harmless with respect to ACE conviction. |
| 4. Was there sufficient evidence to convict for ACE ≥ .08? | State: Breath result 0.129 plus odor, sobriety failures, open containers support conviction. | Early: Evidence was unreliable and insufficient. | Held: Sufficient evidence supports conviction beyond a reasonable doubt. |
Key Cases Cited
- Roche v. State, 690 N.E.2d 1115 (Ind. 1997) (abuse-of-discretion standard for evidentiary rulings)
- Meredith v. State, 906 N.E.2d 867 (Ind. 2009) (officer may stop vehicle when on-the-spot evaluation reasonably suggests lawbreaking)
- Dozier v. State, 709 N.E.2d 27 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999) (bench-trial findings not required; appellate focus is sufficiency of evidence)
- Joyner v. State, 678 N.E.2d 386 (Ind. 1997) (reversals for evidentiary rulings only when decision is clearly against logic and effect of facts)
- Barker v. State, 695 N.E.2d 925 (Ind. 1998) (appellate court may affirm evidentiary rulings on any sustainable basis in record)
- Fox v. State, 717 N.E.2d 957 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999) (harmless-error doctrine for admission of evidence)
- Johnson v. State, 671 N.E.2d 1203 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996) (appellate court will neither reweigh evidence nor judge witness credibility)