State of Indiana v. David Bisard
2012 Ind. App. LEXIS 453
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Bisard- involved DUI-related crash; blood drawn at MOHC by medical assistant Maga with officers present.
- MOHC protocol and training questioned; trial court suppressed DUI blood evidence due to implied-consent statute and protocol concerns.
- MOHC protocols (Exhibits 1–3) and physician-nurse involvement discussed; magistrate found Maga not qualified under 9-30-6-6(a)/(j).
- Court held blood draw complied with physician-approved protocol and not automatically suppressed under 9-30-6-6(j).
- Court concluded implied-consent framework prioritizes admissibility of blood evidence when conducted under proper protocol and rules of evidence; reversed suppression and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 9-30-6-6(a) requires suppression because Maga wasn’t physician-trained under protocol | Bisard argues Maga not under physician protocol, so suppression. | Bisard contends lack of physician-approved protocol mandates suppression. | No; Maga followed a physician-approved MOHC protocol. |
| Whether 9-30-6-6(j) requires suppression for non-listed drawers | Bisard asserts non-enumerated drawers trigger suppression. | Bisard contends only enumerated roles may draw without suppression. | Suppression not compelled; non-listed drawers may be admissible if properly trained and protocols followed. |
| Admissibility of blood evidence under implied-consent vs. Rules of Evidence | State argues blood evidence admissible under implied-consent statutes and Evidence Rules. | Bisard argues non-compliance with protocol should exclude. | Blood evidence admissible when guided by statute and Rules of Evidence. |
| Effect of cross-appeal on Title 9 vs Title 35 admissibility and offer validity | Title 9 governs; cross-appeal moot on illusory-offer claim. | Dispute about Title 9 vs Title 35 admissibility persists. | Title 9 controls; cross-appeal moot; admissibility affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Combs v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1252 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (abuse of discretion admitting blood test without physician protocol; harmless error)
- Brown v. State, 911 N.E.2d 668 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (hospital-drawn blood; protocol issue; harmless error; later legislative changes)
- Abney v. State, 821 N.E.2d 375 (Ind. 2005) (implied consent aimed at acquiring blood alcohol evidence)
- Hopkins v. State, 579 N.E.2d 1297 (Ind. 1991) (greater expertise allows less stringent procedural requirements for technical tests)
- Kolish v. State, 949 N.E.2d 856 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (blood draw at licensed hospital with protocol; admissible)
- Boston v. State, 947 N.E.2d 436 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (series of cases post-Brown; admissibility context)