Richard Vance Hastings v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
2016 Ind. App. Unpub. LEXIS 704
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- On Sept. 12, 2014 Officer Nichols stopped Richard Hastings for speeding in a construction zone; Hastings displayed signs of intoxication and failed three field sobriety tests.
- A breath test at the station registered Hastings’ BAE at .108; State charged multiple OWI counts including a Level 6 felony enhancement based on a prior OWI within five years.
- The State filed a motion in limine the day before trial to limit testimony from Hastings’ proposed expert, Dr. Robert Belloto Jr., about the breath-testing device and related topics.
- The court conducted an out-of-jury hearing and excluded Dr. Belloto as an expert, reasoning his background (a pharmacist) did not qualify him to testify on the technical issues in the case.
- Hastings was convicted on misdemeanor counts and admitted the felony enhancement; the trial court merged and sentenced him. Hastings appealed, arguing the exclusion of Dr. Belloto’s testimony was erroneous and not harmless.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court abused discretion by excluding Dr. Belloto as an expert under Indiana Evidence Rule 702 | State: The proponent (Hastings) bears the burden to establish expert qualifications; court properly excluded testimony after voir dire | Hastings: Dr. Belloto’s pharmacology/pharmacokinetics training and breath-device experience qualified him to explain absorption, metabolism, and device chemistry | Court: Exclusion was an abuse of discretion — Dr. Belloto’s specialized training made his testimony potentially helpful, so he should have been admitted on those topics |
| Whether the procedure used (late motion in limine and out-of-jury qualification hearing) was fundamental error | State: Filing deadline was within pretrial order; prosecutor not required to disqualify expert pretrial | Hastings: Procedure denied fair ability to present expert evidence | Court: Not fundamental error — procedure complied with rules and Hastings had burden to qualify his expert |
| Whether exclusion of expert testimony violated right to present a defense | State: Evidentiary rules govern admissibility; exclusion alone does not convert to constitutional error | Hastings: Exclusion prevented presentation of scientific defense about alcohol absorption/metabolism | Held: Although right to present witnesses exists, courts may enforce evidentiary rules; here exclusion was evidentiary error but not necessarily constitutional — still reversible if not harmless |
| Whether the evidentiary error was harmless | State: Breath-test evidence (.108 BAE) supported conviction; error harmless | Hastings: Expert testimony on pharmacokinetics and device chemistry could have affected jury’s assessment | Court: Error was not harmless — unable to conclude exclusion did not affect jury verdict; reversed and remanded for retrial where expert may testify on absorption/metabolism and related device chemistry as appropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- Wells v. State, 904 N.E.2d 265 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (review of trial court evidentiary rulings for abuse of discretion)
- Prewitt v. State, 819 N.E.2d 393 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (proponent bears burden to establish foundation and reliability for expert testimony)
- Turner v. State, 953 N.E.2d 1039 (Ind. 2011) (discussing Rule 702(b) reliability factors and that Daubert factors may be helpful but not controlling)
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (U.S. 1993) (factors for assessing reliability of expert scientific testimony)
- Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284 (U.S. 1973) (criminal defendant's right to present witnesses and a defense)