Morgan Mannix v. State of Indiana, 2016 Ind. App. LEXIS 83

Background

Morgan Mannix struck and killed pedestrian Alex Trabbert late at night; she stopped briefly, left the scene, went home, and did not call 911.
Officers later visited Mannix’s home, advised her under Indiana’s implied-consent law, and she consented to a blood draw at the hospital about 7.5 hours after the crash; BAC = 0.10 and retrograde extrapolation estimated 0.17–0.28 at the time of the accident; marijuana also detected.
Jury convicted Mannix of Class C felony failure to stop after an accident resulting in death and Class C felony operating while intoxicated (OWI) causing death; acquitted on a controlled-substance-causing-death charge.
Trial court imposed concurrent above-advisory six-year terms (two years suspended; one year probation). Defense argued numerous mitigating factors; judge nonetheless emphasized a presumption of prison when death results.
On appeal, Mannix challenged (1) voluntariness/admissibility of the blood draw, (2) the State’s amendment to add OWI-causing-death charge, and (3) the sentence as improperly relying on the elements of the offenses to justify above-advisory terms.

Issues

Issue	Mannix's Argument	State's/Respondent's Argument	Held
Admissibility of blood draw (consent/Warrant)	Consent involuntary because officer didn’t offer portable breath test first and blood was drawn >3 hours after crash so implied‑consent timing violated	Officer properly advised under implied‑consent; first-offer can be chemical test under §9‑30‑7‑3(a); timing >3 hours affects presumption but not admissibility	Blood draw admissible: consent found voluntary; late draw removes statutory presumption but does not render test inadmissible
Effect of chemical test administered >3 hours after accident	Mannix urged exclusion or that timing invalidated use of BAC evidence	State: 3‑hour rule affects presumption only; may use retrograde extrapolation to connect BAC to time of crash	3‑hour requirement deprives State of rebuttable presumption in Ind. Code §9‑30‑6‑15(b); late test admissible if State presents extrapolation evidence (which it did)
Amendment of charging information to add OWI‑causing‑death charge	Addition was a substantive amendment that prejudiced Mannix’s substantial rights	Amendment was substantive but did not prejudice Mannix because she had months to prepare	No prejudice: amendment allowed; Mannix had ample notice/time to defend (motion filed July, granted Nov., trial in April)
Sentencing: use of elements of one offense as aggravator for the other	Judge erred by using offense elements (fleeing, intoxication) as aggravators for each other without identifying something unique to justify above‑advisory sentence	State argued elements justified enhanced sentence; prosecutor alternatively sought consecutive sentences	Trial court erred: relying on offense elements as aggravators required identification of something unique; appellate court revised sentence to advisory four years (one year suspended) concurrent, one year probation

Key Cases Cited

Halsema v. State, 823 N.E.2d 668 (Ind. 2005) (warrant requirement and burden on State to prove exception for warrantless searches)
Temperly v. State, 933 N.E.2d 558 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (application of implied‑consent provisions and relation between chs. 9‑30‑6 and 9‑30‑7)
State v. Bisard, 973 N.E.2d 1229 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (policy behind implied consent and admissibility of chemical tests)
State v. Whitney, 889 N.E.2d 823 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (portable breath test results generally inadmissible at trial)
Disbro v. State, 791 N.E.2d 774 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) (relating BAC at test time back to time of offense via extrapolation)
Allman v. State, 728 N.E.2d 230 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000) (failure to test within three hours removes statutory presumption; extrapolation required)
State v. Stamm, 616 N.E.2d 377 (Ind. Ct. App. 1993) (late chemical tests affect presumption, not admissibility)
Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482 (Ind. 2007) (sentencing statement requirements when court finds aggravating/mitigating factors)
Windhorst v. State, 868 N.E.2d 504 (Ind. 2007) (appellate options when trial court sentencing statement is inadequate)
Gomillia v. State, 13 N.E.3d 846 (Ind. 2014) (court cannot rely on material elements of the offense as aggravators absent something unique to justify departure)
Erkins v. State, 13 N.E.3d 400 (Ind. 2014) (substantial‑rights prejudice test for charging‑information amendments)
Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219 (Ind. 2008) (Rule 7(B) appellate sentence review focuses on aggregate sentence)