Edwin Jones v. State of Indiana
2013 Ind. App. LEXIS 62
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Jones was convicted of operating a vehicle while intoxicated as a class A misdemeanor based on a breath test result of .18; the State introduced a certificate of inspection (Certification) about the breath-testing equipment; Jones challenged the Certification as testimonial under the Confrontation Clause; the trial court admitted the Certification and the case proceeded to sentencing; the defense preserved challenges to evidentiary rulings and to the sentence; the trial court ultimately found Jones guilty and sentenced him to 365 days with 40 executed and 325 suspended to probation; on appeal, the State’s and Jones’s arguments focused on confrontation, evidentiary rulings, and sentencing limits; the Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction and sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Confrontation rights and admission of Certification | Jones contends the Certification is testimonial | State argues Certification is non-testimonial | Certification non-testimonial; admission harmless error |
| Admission of the probable cause affidavit | Probable cause affidavit is hearsay and improperly admitted | Probable cause affidavit may be harmless or admissible as present-sense evidence | Admission harmless; does not require reversal |
| Leading questions on direct examination | Leading questions improper and prejudicial | Leading questions were permissible under procedures and judicial notice | Leading questions did not distort material facts; harmless error |
| Sentence within statutory limits | Combined imprisonment and probation exceeded one year | Sentence complies with statute; combination not exceeding one year | Sentence affirmed; compliance with statute; no error in sentencing |
Key Cases Cited
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (U.S. 2004) (Confrontation Clause framework)
- Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (U.S. 2009) (Forensic certificates; testimonial nature)
- Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 131 S. Ct. 2705 (U.S. 2011) (Surrogate testimony and confrontation)
- Ramirez v. State, 928 N.E.2d 214 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (Certificates of inspection; nontestimonial under Ramirez framework)
- Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 (U.S. 2006) (Primary purpose test for testimonial statements)
- Williams v. Illinois, 132 S. Ct. 2221 (U.S. 2012) (Primary purpose and accuser-targeting considerations for testimony)
- Smith v. State, 621 N.E.2d 325 (Ind. 1993) (Combined term of imprisonment and probation limitations for misdemeanor)
- Timberlake v. State, 690 N.E.2d 243 (Ind. 1997) (Harmless error in evidentiary rulings when evidence is overwhelming)
- Cornett v. State, 536 N.E.2d 501 (Ind. 1989) (Harmless error doctrine)