Naveen Rajamony v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
49A02-1606-CR-1301
| Ind. Ct. App. | Feb 27, 2017Background
- On Nov. 14, 2014, Officer Eldridge (in uniform, in marked vehicle, working off‑duty security) observed Naveen Rajamony driving erratically in a hotel parking lot and on nearby streets, striking curbs and nearly hitting another car.
- Eldridge smelled alcohol on Rajamony, observed bloodshot eyes, and Rajamony admitted drinking; Rajamony failed three standardized field sobriety tests.
- Eldridge administered a portable breath test (PBT) that read .17 g/210L but did not offer a statutory chemical test because no certified operator was available and Eldridge needed to remain on shift; Rajamony was arrested and charged with OWI endangering a person (Class A misdemeanor).
- Rajamony filed pretrial motions including motion to dismiss (arguing failure to offer chemical test and failure to preserve video) and motion in limine (PBT evidence excluded); the court denied dismissal and granted the motion in limine as to PBT evidence.
- After a jury trial Rajamony was convicted; he appealed raising issues on dismissal, juror challenge, preliminary and final jury instructions, denial of mistrial, and alleged prosecutorial misconduct.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Rajamony's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether failure to offer chemical (statutory) test required dismissal | Failure to offer chemical test does not invalidate arrest or bar prosecution; implied‑consent remedy is administrative (license suspension) | Officer’s failure to offer chemical test violated due process and required dismissal | Denied — no dismissal; omitted chemical test would at most be potentially useful evidence and no police bad faith shown |
| Failure to preserve alleged vehicle/body‑camera video | Any lost video would be at most potentially useful; no evidence of bad faith in preservation | Failure to preserve video violated due process warranting dismissal | Denied — no bad faith shown; evidence would be potentially useful only |
| Denial of for‑cause challenge to prospective Juror S (and exhaustion/prejudice) | Trial court properly exercised discretion; defendant must show prejudice and exhaustion of peremptories | Denial forced use of peremptory and led to acceptance of objectionable Juror 10 | Denied — appellant gave no reason why Juror 10 was objectionable; no prejudice shown |
| Inclusion of charging‑information language in preliminary instructions | Trial court instructed jury that filing a charge is not evidence; instructions considered as whole | Preliminary instruction improperly incorporated charging form language (perjury oath line) | Denied — record shows court's reading did not include the perjury line; any error harmless given instructions as a whole |
| Denial of mistrial after witness mentioned PBT contrary to limine | Trial court acted within discretion; defendant did not request an admonishment at time of mention | Officer’s mention of PBT violated limine and warranted mistrial | Denied — record incomplete re sidebar; defendant failed to request admonishment immediately; no abuse of discretion shown |
| Alleged prosecutorial misconduct in closing (citing Hummel) | Prosecutor may argue law and fact; defendant could rebut during closing; no misconduct producing fundamental error | Prosecutor’s citation to Hummel improperly bolstered State and was misconduct | Denied — not misconduct warranting reversal; defendant did not request admonishment/mistrial and no fundamental error shown |
Key Cases Cited
- Hummel v. State, 363 N.E.2d 227 (Ind. Ct. App. 1977) (officer's failure to offer chemical test affects administrative license suspension but does not invalidate arrest)
- Parker v. State, 530 N.E.2d 128 (Ind. Ct. App. 1988) (due process does not guarantee a chemical sobriety test in all circumstances)
- Land v. State, 802 N.E.2d 45 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (distinguishes potentially useful from materially exculpatory evidence and explains bad‑faith requirement)
- Chissell v. State, 705 N.E.2d 501 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999) (defines materially exculpatory vs. potentially useful evidence standards)
- Weisheit v. State, 26 N.E.3d 3 (Ind. 2015) (discusses exhaustion rule and that conclusory claims of bias without showing which juror was objectionable is insufficient)
- Oswalt v. State, 19 N.E.3d 241 (Ind. 2014) (trial court's discretion in for‑cause challenges and deference to voir dire demeanor observations)
- An‑Hung Yao v. State, 975 N.E.2d 1273 (Ind. 2012) (standard for appellate review of motion to dismiss: abuse of discretion)
- Cooper v. State, 854 N.E.2d 831 (Ind. 2006) (two‑step test for prosecutorial misconduct and need to request admonishment/mistrial to preserve claim)