972 N.E.2d 378
Ind. Ct. App.2012Background
- Watson was convicted of operating a vehicle with BAC 0.08–0.15% (Class C misdemeanor).
- Arrest occurred September 18, 2010 after a traffic stop for speeding; officer detected gin bottle, odor of alcohol, and Watson’s unsteady demeanor.
- Watson’s BAC was measured at 0.15% by a Datamaster breath test at the police station.
- State charged Watson with BAC ≥0.15% (Count 1) and with a prior OWI enhancement (Count 2); jury trial in 2011 resulted in a hung jury and a renewed trial.
- Watson sought public funds for an expert; trial court denied; second trial included testimony on Datamaster calibration; Watson was convicted of a related lesser offense and plea to the enhancement, and was sentenced with merged counts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether jury instructions on lesser-included offenses were proper | Watson alleges abuse in granting the lesser-included instruction | State contends proper analysis under Watts and Sering shows inclusion | No abuse; instruction proper as inherently or factually included and supported by record. |
| Whether trial court properly denied public funds for an expert | Watson sought funds to challenge Datamaster results | Court properly found no demonstrated need or specificity | No abuse; denial upheld given lack of specificity and necessity. |
| Whether the State’s motion in limine exclusion was properly granted | Watson argues Datamaster repair/test evidence should be admitted | State’s motion in limine was appropriate; evidence not properly preserved for appeal | Waived; appellate review not preserved due to lack of offer of proof. |
Key Cases Cited
- Watts v. State, 885 N.E.2d 1228 (Ind. 2008) (lesser-included analysis for BAC offenses)
- Sering v. State, 488 N.E.2d 369 (Ind. Ct. App. 1986) (recognizes status of BAC-based offenses as related harms and classifications)
- Kocielko v. State, 938 N.E.2d 243 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (standards for appointing expert at public expense; need shown)
- Simmons v. State, 760 N.E.2d 1154 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002) (requirement of specific objection/offer of proof to preserve error)