ILNews

Judges affirm drunk-driving conviction

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A Madison Circuit judge did not abuse his discretion in instructing the jury on operating a vehicle while intoxicated as a Class C misdemeanor, a lesser-included offense of drunk-driving charges a man faced, the Indiana Court of Appeals concluded.

Guydell Watson faced two charges for allegedly driving while under the influence: operating a vehicle with a B.A.C. of at least 0.15 percent as a Class A misdemeanor and operating with a B.A.C. of at least 0.15 percent with a previous conviction for operating while intoxicated as a Class D felony. Watson’s first trial resulted in a hung jury, so the state retried on the same charges.

Over Watson’s objection, the trial court also instructed the jury on operating a vehicle with a B.A.C. of at least 0.08 percent but less than 0.15 percent as a lesser-included offense of operating a vehicle with a B.A.C. of at least 0.15 percent. The jury found Watson guilty of the lesser-included offense, and Watson pleaded guilty to an amended Class D felony charge.

On appeal, Watson challenged the refusal to grant him public funds to hire an expert witness to decipher the results of tests performed on the BAC Datamaster used by the arresting officer. At the trial, an inspector with the Indiana State Department of Toxicology testified about how Datamasters are calibrated.

But Watson failed to show that the proposed unnamed expert could demonstrate that which he desired from the expert and failed to set forth what exactly he wanted the expert to testify about, Senior Judge Carr Darden wrote. It appeared he wanted the expert for only exploratory purposes.

Watson also claimed the trial court improperly granted the state’s motion to instruct on the lesser-included offense. The Court of Appeals found that operating a vehicle with a BAC of at least 0.08 percent but less than 0.15 percent is an inherently lesser-included offense of operating a vehicle with a BAC of at least 0.15 percent, so the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in instructing the jury on the Class C misdemeanor.

 

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. What is this, the Ind Supreme Court thinking that there is a separation of powers and limited enumerated powers as delegated by a dusty old document? Such eighteen century thinking, so rare and unwanted by the elites in this modern age. Dictate to us, dictate over us, the massess are chanting! George Soros agrees. Time to change with times Ind Supreme Court, says all President Snows. Rule by executive decree is the new black.

  2. I made the same argument before a commission of the Indiana Supreme Court and then to the fedeal district and federal appellate courts. Fell flat. So very glad to read that some judges still beleive that evidentiary foundations matter.

  3. KUDOS to the Indiana Supreme Court for realizing that some bureacracies need to go to the stake. Recall what RWR said: "No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!" NOW ... what next to this rare and inspiring chopping block? Well, the Commission on Gender and Race (but not religion!?!) is way overdue. And some other Board's could be cut with a positive for State and the reputation of the Indiana judiciary.

  4. During a visit where an informant with police wears audio and video, does the video necessary have to show hand to hand transaction of money and narcotics?

  5. I will agree with that as soon as law schools stop lying to prospective students about salaries and employment opportunities in the legal profession. There is no defense to the fraudulent numbers first year salaries they post to mislead people into going to law school.

ADVERTISEMENT