47 N.E.3d 621
Ind. Ct. App.2015Background
- Late-night traffic stop after officer observed defective taillights; Pattison drove into his driveway before stopping.
- Officer observed signs of intoxication; portable breath test and certified chemical breath test within three hours produced an ACE of .10%.
- Pattison was tried for operating with ACE ≥ .08%; jury initially convicted of a misdemeanor and, after undisputed prior convictions were proved, convicted of a Class D felony with a prior.
- Trial court gave a pattern-like instruction mirroring Ind. Code § 9-30-6-15(b): if a timely chemical test shows ACE ≥ .08%, the jury “shall presume” ACE ≥ .08% at time of driving, but the presumption is rebuttable.
- Pattison did not object at trial; on appeal he argued the instruction created a constitutionally impermissible evidentiary presumption that shifted the burden of proof and thus was fundamental error.
- The Court of Appeals held the instruction was erroneous and constitutionally infirm, and reversal was required because the error was not cured by other instructions and was not harmless (the presumption targeted the only contested element).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the jury instruction (tracking the statutory language that the jury “shall presume” ACE at time of driving from a timely chem test) created an unconstitutional burden-shifting presumption | Statute and instruction are constitutional; presumption is rebuttable and does not relieve State of its burden; other instructions (presumption of innocence) suffice | Instruction creates a mandatory/rebuttable presumption that shifts burden to defendant to disprove an element, violating due process | Instruction was erroneous and constitutionally infirm; error was not cured by other instructions and was not harmless because it shifted the burden on the only contested element — conviction reversed |
Key Cases Cited
- Chilcutt v. State, 544 N.E.2d 856 (Ind. Ct. App. 1989) (upheld constitutionality of statutory BAC-to-driving presumption as rebuttable and not relieving State of burden when viewed properly)
- Hall v. State, 560 N.E.2d 561 (Ind. Ct. App. 1990) (statute’s "shall presume" language risks a mandatory interpretation; jury instruction tracking statute must clarify presumption is permissive)
- Sturgeon v. State, 575 N.E.2d 679 (Ind. Ct. App. 1991) (instruction mirroring statutory language created constitutional error by shifting burden)
- Collins v. State, 567 N.E.2d 798 (Ind. 1991) (mandatory rebuttable presumptions violate due process even if rebuttable)
- Regan v. State, 950 N.E.2d 640 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (no error where statutory-language inference was supplemented to make clear jury could reject it even if not rebutted)