State of Indiana v. Brain Gibson (mem. dec.)
10A05-1701-CR-5
| Ind. Ct. App. | May 24, 2017Background
- On April 16, 2016, Trooper Meers stopped Brian Gibson for speeding and a failure to signal; Gibson showed signs of intoxication and a portable breath test read .139.
- At the county jail, Gibson submitted to an evidentiary breath test. The machine printed "Insufficient Sample" after the first set of attempts.
- The officer restarted the test; the second instrument report again printed "Insufficient Sample" but also printed a numerical breath alcohol concentration (.136), which the trooper checked for date/time and signed.
- Gibson was charged with OWI and related counts and moved to suppress the chemical breath test result on reliability/procedure grounds.
- The trial court granted the suppression based on concern that the instrument had identified the sample as "insufficient." The State appealed.
- The Court of Appeals reversed, holding the officer followed the Department of Toxicology procedures and the result was admissible; reliability concerns go to weight, not admissibility.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Gibson) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of breath test result when instrument printed "Insufficient Sample" but also printed a numeric BAC on a subsequent report | Result is admissible because trooper followed administrative procedures (retest, check date/time, sign) so foundation satisfied | Result unreliable because the machine identified the sample as "insufficient," undermining the validity of the numeric reading | Court reversed suppression: procedures complied with under the Admin. Code and statute; admissible; reliability goes to weight, not exclusion |
| Whether administering three breath samples within a single test violated procedure (should be three separate tests) | Multiple samples per test are anticipated and permitted by the Admin. Code and training guidance (machine may request additional samples within one test) | Trooper erred by using three samples in one test rather than conducting three separate tests | Court held the machine’s multiple-sample prompts are proper under the Admin. Code; no procedural violation |
Key Cases Cited
- Wolpert v. State, 47 N.E.3d 1246 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (standard of review for admitting/excluding breath test results)
- Keck v. State, 4 N.E.3d 1180 (Ind. 2014) (de novo review for questions of law)
- Washington v. State, 898 N.E.2d 1200 (Ind. 2008) (party appealing negative judgment must show ruling contrary to law)
- Johanson v. State, 695 N.E.2d 965 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998) (State bears burden to establish foundation for chemical test admission)
- Rembusch v. State, 836 N.E.2d 979 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (State may offer breath test results without expert testimony)