Dannie Carl Pattison v. State of Indiana, 54 N.E.3d 361

Pattison was stopped for inoperable taillights; officers observed signs of intoxication and a portable breath test indicated alcohol. He later submitted to a certified breath test ~1.5 hours after the stop showing an ACE of 0.10. He was charged with operating a vehicle with ACE ≥ 0.08.
Trial evidence: certified chemical test results and officer observations; Pattison defended by claiming medical conditions and possible inhaler interference and denied drinking that night.
Jury was instructed with a statutory-based instruction that mirrored Ind. Code § 9-30-6-15(b): if a chemical test within three hours shows ACE ≥ 0.08, "the jury shall presume" ACE ≥ 0.08 at time of driving, but "the presumption is rebuttable." No contemporaneous objection was made at trial.
Pattison appealed, arguing the instruction created a mandatory presumption that shifted the burden of proof and thus violated due process; the Court of Appeals reversed, finding the instruction misleading. The State sought transfer.
The Indiana Supreme Court reviewed whether the instruction constituted fundamental error (given no trial objection) and whether it unconstitutionally relieved the State of proving every element beyond a reasonable doubt.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Pattison)	Held
Whether the jury instruction ("shall presume...; however, the presumption is rebuttable") created an unconstitutional mandatory presumption that shifted the State's burden to disprove the element of ACE at time of driving	The instruction correctly tracks the statute, creates a rebuttable presumption, does not relieve the State of proving ACE, and is constitutionally permissible under precedent	The phrasing "shall presume" could mislead jurors into believing the presumption is mandatory and shift the burden to defendant to disprove ACE at the time of driving	The instruction did not unconstitutionally shift the burden. It describes a mandatory rebuttable presumption that is permissible because the State still must prove the predicate (certified test within three hours) and the defendant may rebut; conviction affirmed

Sandstrom v. Montana, 442 U.S. 510 (1979) (Due Process forbids presumptions that shift burden of proof on an essential element)
Francis v. Franklin, 471 U.S. 307 (1985) (distinguishes mandatory presumptions from permissive inferences; mandatory presumptions infirm if they shift burden)
Platt v. State, 589 N.E.2d 222 (Ind. 1992) (approves statutory instruction mirroring § 9-30-6-15 as constitutionally permissible)
Chilcutt v. State, 544 N.E.2d 856 (Ind. Ct. App. 1989) (upheld predecessor statute’s rebuttable presumption; defendant bears burden of production to rebut)
Smith v. State, 502 N.E.2d 122 (Ind. Ct. App. 1986) (held that without extrapolation evidence the State failed to prove ACE at time of offense, prompting the legislature’s statutory presumption)