ILNews

In affirming DUI on appeal, judges include predictive warning

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

An argument made on appeal in a drunken-driving case that the person who certified the operating condition of a breath-test machine should have been required to testify was rejected Monday by the Indiana Court of Appeals, which also warned in a footnote that such a ruling could cost criminal defendants.

The 31-page opinion in Edwin Jones v. State of Indiana, 49A02-1204-CR-292, affirmed Jones’ Class A misdemeanor conviction on a charge of operating a vehicle while intoxicated. Jones had a blood-alcohol level of 0.18 percent when he was arrested. He argued that because a state trooper testified about the certification of a breath tester rather than the person who signed the certification, he was deprived of his Sixth Amendment rights under the Confrontation Clause.

“We observe that, as a policy matter, were we to agree with Jones and find that certificates of inspection such as the Certification at issue here were testimonial evidence and require that the person who inspected the breath test equipment testify at every OWI trial before breath test results may be admitted, the legislature could respond by removing the statutory requirements currently in place which ensure the accuracy of such equipment, judging it as an undue burden on law enforcement,” Judge Elaine Brown wrote in an opinion joined by judges Mark Bailey and Nancy Vaidik, who concurred in a separate opinion.

The court also found no error in Jones’ sentencing or in the court overruling defense objections to questions of the trooper it considered leading because it concerned facts not in dispute and because “the state presented a multitude of other evidence that he operated a vehicle while intoxicated.”

In her concurring opinion, Vaidik wrote that the 2012 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Williams v. Illinois, 132 S. Ct. 2221, required her to disagree with the majority’s finding as it relates to an earlier Court of Appeals opinion that Vaidik wrote in Ramirez v. State, 928 N.E.2d 214 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010).

“Instead of finding that the certificates of inspection are ‘prepared for purposes of criminal litigation, . . . [but] are not prepared in anticipation of litigation in any particular case or with respect to implicating any specific defendant,’ ... the majority would find that the ‘primary purpose [of the certificates of inspection] is to ensure that certain breath test equipment is in good operating condition in compliance with Ind. Code § 9-30-6-5,’ Vaidik wrote.

“I respectfully disagree with this. I still believe that these certificates of inspection are generally ‘prepared for purposes of criminal litigation.’ Therefore, in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Williams, I would simply eliminate the third rationale articulated in Ramirez."
 

 

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 just wanted to point out that Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner, Senator Feinstein, former Senate majority leader Bill Frist, and former attorney general John Ashcroft are responsible for this rubbish. We need to keep a eye on these corrupt, arrogant, and incompetent fools.

  2. Well I guess our politicians have decided to give these idiot federal prosecutors unlimited power. Now if I guy bounces a fifty-dollar check, the U.S. attorney can intentionally wait for twenty-five years or so and have the check swabbed for DNA and file charges. These power hungry federal prosecutors now have unlimited power to mess with people. we can thank Wisconsin's Jim Sensenbrenner and Diane Feinstein, John Achcroft and Bill Frist for this one. Way to go, idiots.

  3. I wonder if the USSR had electronic voting machines that changed the ballot after it was cast? Oh well, at least we have a free media serving as vicious watchdog and exposing all of the rot in the system! (Insert rimshot)

  4. Jose, you are assuming those in power do not wish to be totalitarian. My experience has convinced me otherwise. Constitutionalists are nearly as rare as hens teeth among the powerbrokers "managing" us for The Glorious State. Oh, and your point is dead on, el correcta mundo. Keep the Founders’ (1791 & 1851) vision alive, my friend, even if most all others, and especially the ruling junta, chase only power and money (i.e. mammon)

  5. Hypocrisy in high places, absolute immunity handed out like Halloween treats (it is the stuff of which tyranny is made) and the belief that government agents are above the constitutions and cannot be held responsible for mere citizen is killing, perhaps has killed, The Republic. And yet those same power drunk statists just reel on down the hallway toward bureaucratic fascism.

ADVERTISEMENT