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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The is an unsigned editorial masquerading as a news story. Almost everyone quoted was biased in favor of letting all illegal immigrants remain in the U.S. (Ignoring that Obama deported 3.5 million in 8 years). For some reason Obama enforcing part of the immigration laws was O.K. but Trump enforcing additional parts is terrible. I have listed to press conferences and explanations of the Homeland Security memos and I gather from them that less than 1 million will be targeted for deportation, the "dreamers" will be left alone and illegals arriving in the last two years -- especially those arriving very recently -- will be subject to deportation but after the criminals. This will not substantially affect the GDP negatively, especially as it will take place over a number of years. I personally think this is a rational approach to the illegal immigration problem. It may cause Congress to finally pass new immigration laws rationalizing the whole immigration situation.

  2. Mr. Straw, I hope you prevail in the fight. Please show us fellow American's that there is a way to fight the corrupted justice system and make them an example that you and others will not be treated unfairly. I hope you the best and good luck....

  3. @ President Snow - Nah, why try to fix something that ain't broken??? You do make an excellent point. I am sure some Mickey or Minnie Mouse will take Ruckers seat, I wonder how his retirement planning is coming along???

  4. Can someone please explain why Judge Barnes, Judge Mathias and Chief Judge Vaidik thought it was OK to re weigh the evidence blatantly knowing that by doing so was against the rules and went ahead and voted in favor of the father? I would love to ask them WHY??? I would also like to ask the three Supreme Justices why they thought it was OK too.

  5. How nice, on the day of my car accident on the way to work at the Indiana Supreme Court. Unlike the others, I did not steal any money or do ANYTHING unethical whatsoever. I am suing the Indiana Supreme Court and appealed the failure of the district court in SDIN to protect me. I am suing the federal judge because she failed to protect me and her abandonment of jurisdiction leaves her open to lawsuits because she stripped herself of immunity. I am a candidate for Indiana Supreme Court justice, and they imposed just enough sanction so that I am made ineligible. I am asking the 7th Circuit to remove all of them and appoint me as the new Chief Justice of Indiana. That's what they get for dishonoring my sacrifice and and violating the ADA in about 50 different ways.

ADVERTISEMENT