ILNews

Bisard asks Supreme Court to rule on blood-draw admissibility

IL Staff
October 19, 2012
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Attorneys for Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department officer David Bisard have asked the Indiana Supreme Court to determine whether blood evidence may be admitted in his drunken driving and reckless homicide trial. Bisard was charged after driving his police cruiser into three motorcyclists who were stopped at an intersection, killing one.

A blood draw at the scene after the crash concluded that Bisard had been driving with a blood alcohol content of 0.19 percent, more than twice the legal limit.

Bisard argues that the blood draw did not follow appropriate protocols, and the trial court ruled that I.C. 9-30-6-6 (2010) compelled suppressing the blood evidence for purposes of the DUI charges, but not for the reckless homicide count.

Five weeks ago, a panel of the Indiana Court of Appeals reversed the trial court ruling in State of Indiana v. David Bisard, 49A04-1109-CR-459, and ordered that a blood draw taken from Bisard after the crash on Aug. 6, 2010, be admitted into evidence.

Senior Judge Randall Shepard wrote the unanimous 21-page decision  in which the appellate court found that the medical assistant who drew Bisard’s blood followed physician-approved protocols.

 “The issue presented is whether the trial court erred when it suppressed a blood test result for purpose of Title 9 charges (Driving While Intoxicated) but ruled the same blood test result admissible for purposes of Title 35 charges (Criminal Recklessness and Reckless Homicide),” the petition to transfer says. “In reversing the trial court’s suppression of the blood evidence, did the Court of Appeals reweigh the evidence, substitute its judgment for that of the trial court, significantly depart from accepted standards of review, and misinterpret existing precedent in a way that conflicts with existing appellate decisions?”

Bisard’s request for transfer to the Supreme Court also asks the justices to throw out the trial court determination that the blood draw was admissible for the reckless homicide count.


 

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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT