ILNews

Judges uphold drunk-driving conviction

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals declined to find that a Marion Superior court abused its discretion when it admitted the results of a chemical breath test.

In Bernard Short v. State of Indiana, No. 49A02-1105-CR-403, Bernard Short appealed his conviction of Class A misdemeanor operating a vehicle while intoxicated. He was pulled over by police after an officer saw Short’s car make unsafe lane movements and cut off other cars. Lieutenant Richard Kivett performed a certified chemical breath test on Short, which showed he had a blood alcohol concentration of 0.10.

Short tried to suppress the results of the breath test, but the trial court denied it.

On appeal, Short claimed the trial court abused its discretion in admitting the results of the breath test because Kivett’s testimony as to how he administered the test differed from the suppression hearing to the trial. Short argued Kivett didn’t follow the appropriate testing procedures.

Given the appellate court’s standard of review for admissibility of evidence, it couldn’t say that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting the test results.

Short also argued that the trial court erred in rejecting his proposed jury instruction regarding the breath test and when it should not be admissible.

“The proposed instruction tracks the language of Indiana Code Section 9-30-6-5(d) and Ramirez v. State, 928 N.E.2d 214 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010), trans. denied,” wrote Judge Michael Barnes. “However, simply because the language tracks the language from an opinion from this court and a statute does not make it proper for a jury instruction.”

The proposed instruction concerns admissibility of evidence, which is determined by a trial court, and the trial court properly rejected it, wrote Barnes.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
2015 Distinguished Barrister &
Up and Coming Lawyer Reception

Tuesday, May 5, 2015 • 4:30 - 7:00 pm
Learn More


ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I'm not sure what's more depressing: the fact that people would pay $35,000 per year to attend an unaccredited law school, or the fact that the same people "are hanging in there and willing to follow the dean’s lead in going forward" after the same school fails to gain accreditation, rendering their $70,000 and counting education worthless. Maybe it's a good thing these people can't sit for the bar.

  2. Such is not uncommon on law school startups. Students and faculty should tap Bruce Green, city attorney of Lufkin, Texas. He led a group of studnets and faculty and sued the ABA as a law student. He knows the ropes, has advised other law school startups. Very astute and principled attorney of unpopular clients, at least in his past, before Lufkin tapped him to run their show.

  3. Not that having the appellate records on Odyssey won't be welcome or useful, but I would rather they first bring in the stray counties that aren't yet connected on the trial court level.

  4. Aristotle said 350 bc: "The most hated sort, and with the greatest reason, is usury, which makes a gain out of money itself, and not from the natural object of it. For money was intended to be used in exchange, but not to increase at interest. And this term interest, which means the birth of money from money, is applied to the breeding of money because the offspring resembles the parent. Wherefore of an modes of getting wealth this is the most unnatural.

  5. Oh yes, lifetime tenure. The Founders gave that to the federal judges .... at that time no federal district courts existed .... so we are talking the Supreme Court justices only in context ....so that they could rule against traditional marriage and for the other pet projects of the sixties generation. Right. Hmmmm, but I must admit, there is something from that time frame that seems to recommend itself in this context ..... on yes, from a document the Founders penned in 1776: " He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good."

ADVERTISEMENT