John D. Anders v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
17A05-1611-CR-2634
| Ind. Ct. App. | Apr 25, 2017Background
- Anders was convicted after a trial of operating a vehicle with an ACE greater than .08 (Class C misdemeanor).
- Deputy Fuller observed an open beer container in Anders’ car, detected odor of alcohol, and Anders admitted having a few drinks.
- Anders was transported to the county jail for a breath test administered by Deputy Short, who initially requested a stronger blow; two subsequent tests showed ACE about .11.
- Evidence of the breath-test results was admitted over Anders’ objection; Anders sought to introduce evidence that he was not impaired.
- Anders challenged both the breath-test foundation and the evidence regarding impairment, and also challenged the jury instructions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of breath test results | Anders argues Deputy Short failed to follow approved breath-test procedures. | State contends procedure followed Department of Toxicology rules; basis for admission established. | No abuse; breath-test results properly admitted. |
| Relevance of impairment evidence | Lack of impairment is relevant to defense and should have been admitted. | Evidence of impairment not legally required to convict under IC 9-30-5-1; relevance limited. | Trial court did not abuse discretion in excluding impairment evidence. |
| Jury instructions on ACE inference | Instruction improperly shifted burden or misstated statutory presumption when test showed > .08. | Instruction properly stated that a three-part test allows inference of .08 if testing occurred within three hours; inference optional. | No abuse; instructions properly conveyed law and evidentiary standards. |
Key Cases Cited
- Fields v. State, 807 N.E.2d 106 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (breath-test foundation and admissibility standards)
- Valdez v. State, 56 N.E.3d 1244 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016) (open-door doctrine for admitting otherwise inadmissible evidence)
- Isom v. State, 31 N.E.3d 469 (Ind. 2015) (jury-instruction review for abuse of discretion; correct statement of law and evidentiary support)
- Coffey v. Shiomoto, 345 P.3d 896 (Cal. 2015) (implication of impairment evidence related to breath-test results)