blood alcohol test in Indiana

1991IC 9-11-4-1; Schultz v. State (1981), Ind. App., 417 N.E.2d 1127, 1138 , reh'g denied 421 N.E.2d 22 , transfer denied (decided under predecessor statute).

1991IC 9-11-4-1; Schultz v. State (1981), Ind.App., 417 N.E.2d 1127, 1188 , reh'g denied 421 N.E.2d 22 , transfer denied (decided under predecessor statute).

2013Below, the New Mexico Supreme Court had ruled that Melendez-Diaz was satisfied when, at trial, “the State called another analyst who was familiar with the laboratory’s testing procedures, but had neither participated in nor observed the test on Bullcoming’s blood sample,” holding that “although the blood-alcohol analysis was ‘testimonial,’ the Confrontation Clause did not require the certifying analyst’s in-court testimony” and that “live testimony of another analyst satisfied the constitutional requirements.” Id. at 2709-2710 .

2013The U.S. Supreme Court held that such “surrogate testimony . . . does not meet the constitutional requirement” and that “[t]he accused’s right is to be confronted with the analyst who 12 made the certification, unless that analyst is unavailable at trial, and the accused had an opportunity, pretrial, to cross-examine that particular scientist.” Id. at 2710 .

2000For this reason, and rather than relying solely upon the blood alcohol test, pursuant to I.C. 9-13-2-131, I would decline to follow Geyer v. State (1988) Ind.App., 531 N.E.2d 235 , trans. denied, and Boyd v. State (1988) Ind.App., 519 N.E.2d 182 , which affirm driving while intoxicated convictions on much less convincing evidence than was present in Clark and Liquori.

2000For this reason, and rather than relying solely upon the blood alcohol test, pursuant to I.C. 9-13-2-131, I would decline to follow Geyer v. State (1988) Ind.App., 531 N.E.2d 235 , trans. denied, and Boyd v. State (1988) Ind.App., 519 N.E.2d 182 , which affirm driving while intoxicated convictions on much less convincing evidence than was present in Clark and Liquori.

1998At bottom, Barnes attempts to blur a crucial distinction: while the Brady doctrine imposes a federal constitutional duty on the State to preserve exculpatory evidence in certain circumstances, see generally Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 , 115 S.Ct. 1555 , 131 L.Ed.2d 490 (1995), the police have no obligation to gather that evidence on the defendant’s behalf.

1998At bottom, Barnes attempts to blur a crucial distinction: while the Brady doctrine imposes a federal constitutional duty on the State to preserve exculpatory evidence in certain circumstances, see generally Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 , 115 S.Ct. 1555 , 131 L.Ed.2d 490 (1995), the police have no obligation to gather that evidence on the defendant’s behalf.

1995"In failing to make a timely objection or motion [to strike], the party is, in effect, acquiescing in the admission of the evidence." Id. [4] Reeves also refers us to Fendley v. Ford (1984), Ind.App., 458 N.E.2d 1167 , for the necessity of a chain of custody to admit a hospital record containing the result of a blood alcohol test.

1995Reeves also refers us to Fendley v. Ford (1984), Ind.App., 458 N.E.2d 1167 , for the necessity of a chain of custody to admit a hospital record containing the result of a blood alcohol test.

1995"In failing to make a timely objection or motion [to strike], the party is, in effect, acquiescing in the admission of the evidence." Id. [4] Reeves also refers us to Fendley v. Ford (1984), Ind.App., 458 N.E.2d 1167 , for the necessity of a chain of custody to admit a hospital record containing the result of a blood alcohol test.

1995When a party "does not properly bring [his] objection to the trial court's attention so that the trial court may rule on it at the appropriate time, he is deemed to have waived that possible error." Ingram v. State (1989), Ind., 547 N.E.2d 823, 829 .

1995When a party "does not properly bring [his] objection to the trial court's attention so that the trial court may rule on it at the appropriate time, he is deemed to have waived that possible error." Ingram v. State (1989), Ind., 547 N.E.2d 823, 829 .

1995In Burp v. State (1993), IndApp., 612 N.E.2d 169 , this Court reaffirmed the need for more than simply a business records foundation to permit the admission of a blood alcohol test.

1993Because the blood alcohol test was relevant and admissible evidence, Tyner, supra, the trial court erred when it granted Stamm's motion to suppress and excluded the blood alcohol test.

1991IC 9-11-4-1; Schultz v. State (1981), Ind. App., 417 N.E.2d 1127, 1138 , reh'g denied 421 N.E.2d 22 , transfer denied (decided under predecessor statute).

1991IC 9-11-4-1; Schultz v. State (1981), Ind.App., 417 N.E.2d 1127, 1188 , reh'g denied 421 N.E.2d 22 , transfer denied (decided under predecessor statute).

1990Clark v. State (1987), Ind.App., 512 N.E.2d 223 . 4 Here, Henriott ran his car off the road.

1987That case held that, in addition to the blood-alcohol test result being .10 or more, there must be some evidence that the defendant's driving was impaired. [1] 497 N.E.2d at 262 .

1987That case held that, in addition to the blood-alcohol test result being .10 or more, there must be some evidence that the defendant's driving was impaired. 1 497 N.E.2d at 262 .

1986This Court in Elsperman v. Plump (1983), Ind. App., 446 N.E.2d 1027 , 1032 quoted approvingly from a Pennsylvania decision wherein the court ruled that evidence of a blood alcohol test was improperly excluded on the question whether a bar patron was intoxicated at the time he was served his last drink.

1984See, e.g., State v. Pickering (1983) Me., 462 A.2d 1151 ; State v. Miller (1983) 213 Neb. 274 , 328 N.W.2d 769 ; State v. Green (1982) La., 418 So.2d 609 ; State v. Erickson (1976) N.D., 241 N.W.2d 854 .

1984See, eg., State v. Pickering (1983) Me., 462 A.2d 1151 ; State v. Miller (1988) 218 Neb. 274 , 828 N.W.2d 769 ; State v. Green (1982) La., 418 So.2d 609 ; State v. Erickson (1976) N.D., 241 N.W.2d 854 .

1984Cases which hold such tests admissible, e.g., Shultz v. State, supra, 417 N.E.2d at 1137 ; Thompkins v. State, supra, 383 N.E.2d at 351 , assume the existence of some evidence that the test in question was properly conducted.

1984Cases which hold such tests admissible, eg., Shultz v. State, supra, 417 N.E.2d at 1187 ; Thompkins v. State, supra, 383 N.E.2d at 351 , assume the existence of some evidence that the test in question was properly conducted.

1984See, e.g., State v. Pickering (1983) Me., 462 A.2d 1151 ; State v. Miller (1983) 213 Neb. 274 , 328 N.W.2d 769 ; State v. Green (1982) La., 418 So.2d 609 ; State v. Erickson (1976) N.D., 241 N.W.2d 854 .

1984See, e.g., State v. Pickering (1983) Me., 462 A.2d 1151 ; State v. Miller (1983) 213 Neb. 274 , 328 N.W.2d 769 ; State v. Green (1982) La., 418 So.2d 609 ; State v. Erickson (1976) N.D., 241 N.W.2d 854 .

1984See, e.g., State v. Pickering (1983) Me., 462 A.2d 1151 ; State v. Miller (1983) 213 Neb. 274 , 328 N.W.2d 769 ; State v. Green (1982) La., 418 So.2d 609 ; State v. Erickson (1976) N.D., 241 N.W.2d 854 .

1984See, eg., State v. Pickering (1983) Me., 462 A.2d 1151 ; State v. Miller (1988) 218 Neb. 274 , 828 N.W.2d 769 ; State v. Green (1982) La., 418 So.2d 609 ; State v. Erickson (1976) N.D., 241 N.W.2d 854 .

1981Cherry v. State, (1981) Ind., 414 N.E.2d 301 ; Little v. State, supra. On January 20, 1978, the court denied McGary’s motion to dismiss predicated upon absence of evidence of corpus delicti, and denied the motion to suppress evidence of the blood alcohol test.

1977Super. 1 , 262 A.2d 41 (1970); Story v. Hults, 19 N.Y.2d 936 , 281 N.Y.S.2d 342 , 228 N.E.2d 398 (1967); Hunter v. State, 25 Ohio Misc. 117 , 266 N.E.2d 599 (1970); Stratikos v. Department of Motor Vehicles, 4 Or.App. 313 , 477 P.2d 237 , 478 P.2d 654 (1970); Commonwealth v. Morris, 218 Pa.Super. 347 , 280 A.2d 658 (1971); State v. Dellveneri, 128 Vt. 85 , 258 A.2d 834 (1969); Deaner v. Commonwealth, 210 Va. 285 , 170 S.E.2d 199 (1969).

1977Super. 1 , 262 A.2d 41 (1970); Story v. Hults, 19 N.Y.2d 936 , 281 N.Y.S.2d 342 , 228 N.E.2d 398 (1967); Hunter v. State, 25 Ohio Misc. 117 , 266 N.E.2d 599 (1970); Stratikos v. Department of Motor Vehicles, 4 Or.App. 313 , 477 P.2d 237 , 478 P.2d 654 (1970); Commonwealth v. Morris, 218 Pa.Super. 347 , 280 A.2d 658 (1971); State v. Dellveneri, 128 Vt. 85 , 258 A.2d 834 (1969); Deaner v. Commonwealth, 210 Va. 285 , 170 S.E.2d 199 (1969).

1977Super. 1 , 262 A.2d 41 (1970); Story v. Hults, 19 N.Y.2d 936 , 281 N.Y.S.2d 342 , 228 N.E.2d 398 (1967); Hunter v. State, 25 Ohio Misc. 117 , 266 N.E.2d 599 (1970); Stratikos v. Department of Motor Vehicles, 4 Or.App. 313 , 477 P.2d 237 , 478 P.2d 654 (1970); Commonwealth v. Morris, 218 Pa.Super. 347 , 280 A.2d 658 (1971); State v. Dellveneri, 128 Vt. 85 , 258 A.2d 834 (1969); Deaner v. Commonwealth, 210 Va. 285 , 170 S.E.2d 199 (1969).

1977Super. 1 , 262 A.2d 41 (1970); Story v. Hults, 19 N.Y.2d 936 , 281 N.Y.S.2d 342 , 228 N.E.2d 398 (1967); Hunter v. State, 25 Ohio Misc. 117 , 266 N.E.2d 599 (1970); Stratikos v. Department of Motor Vehicles, 4 Or.App. 313 , 477 P.2d 237 , 478 P.2d 654 (1970); Commonwealth v. Morris, 218 Pa.Super. 347 , 280 A.2d 658 (1971); State v. Dellveneri, 128 Vt. 85 , 258 A.2d 834 (1969); Deaner v. Commonwealth, 210 Va. 285 , 170 S.E.2d 199 (1969).

1977See Rust v. Department of Motor Vehicles, Div. of Driver’s Lic., 267 Cal.App.2d 545 , 73 Cal. Reptr. 366, 367 (1968) (‘A suspected drunk driver has refused to take the blood alcohol test when he conditioned his consent on having counsel present; he is not entitled to the advice of counsel in connection with the test * * *.’); Mills v. Bridges, 93 Idaho 679 , 471 P.2d 66 (1970); State v. Palmer, 291 Minn. 302 , 191 N.W.2d 188 (1971); Rusho v. Johns, 186 Neb. 131 , 181 N.W.2d 448 (1970); State v. Pandoli, 109 N.J.

1977See Rust v. Department of Motor Vehicles, Div. of Driver’s Lic., 267 Cal.App.2d 545 , 73 Cal. Reptr. 366, 367 (1968) (‘A suspected drunk driver has refused to take the blood alcohol test when he conditioned his consent on having counsel present; he is not entitled to the advice of counsel in connection with the test * * *.’); Mills v. Bridges, 93 Idaho 679 , 471 P.2d 66 (1970); State v. Palmer, 291 Minn. 302 , 191 N.W.2d 188 (1971); Rusho v. Johns, 186 Neb. 131 , 181 N.W.2d 448 (1970); State v. Pandoli, 109 N.J.

1977Super. 1 , 262 A.2d 41 (1970); Story v. Hults, 19 N.Y.2d 936 , 281 N.Y.S.2d 342 , 228 N.E.2d 398 (1967); Hunter v. State, 25 Ohio Misc. 117 , 266 N.E.2d 599 (1970); Stratikos v. Department of Motor Vehicles, 4 Or.App. 313 , 477 P.2d 237 , 478 P.2d 654 (1970); Commonwealth v. Morris, 218 Pa.Super. 347 , 280 A.2d 658 (1971); State v. Dellveneri, 128 Vt. 85 , 258 A.2d 834 (1969); Deaner v. Commonwealth, 210 Va. 285 , 170 S.E.2d 199 (1969).

1977Super. 1 , 262 A.2d 41 (1970); Story v. Hults, 19 N.Y.2d 936 , 281 N.Y.S.2d 342 , 228 N.E.2d 398 (1967); Hunter v. State, 25 Ohio Misc. 117 , 266 N.E.2d 599 (1970); Stratikos v. Department of Motor Vehicles, 4 Or.App. 313 , 477 P.2d 237 , 478 P.2d 654 (1970); Commonwealth v. Morris, 218 Pa.Super. 347 , 280 A.2d 658 (1971); State v. Dellveneri, 128 Vt. 85 , 258 A.2d 834 (1969); Deaner v. Commonwealth, 210 Va. 285 , 170 S.E.2d 199 (1969).

1977See Rust v. Department of Motor Vehicles, Div. of Driver’s Lic., 267 Cal.App.2d 545 , 73 Cal. Reptr. 366, 367 (1968) (‘A suspected drunk driver has refused to take the blood alcohol test when he conditioned his consent on having counsel present; he is not entitled to the advice of counsel in connection with the test * * *.’); Mills v. Bridges, 93 Idaho 679 , 471 P.2d 66 (1970); State v. Palmer, 291 Minn. 302 , 191 N.W.2d 188 (1971); Rusho v. Johns, 186 Neb. 131 , 181 N.W.2d 448 (1970); State v. Pandoli, 109 N.J.

1977See Rust v. Department of Motor Vehicles, Div. of Driver’s Lic., 267 Cal.App.2d 545 , 73 Cal. Reptr. 366, 367 (1968) (‘A suspected drunk driver has refused to take the blood alcohol test when he conditioned his consent on having counsel present; he is not entitled to the advice of counsel in connection with the test * * *.’); Mills v. Bridges, 93 Idaho 679 , 471 P.2d 66 (1970); State v. Palmer, 291 Minn. 302 , 191 N.W.2d 188 (1971); Rusho v. Johns, 186 Neb. 131 , 181 N.W.2d 448 (1970); State v. Pandoli, 109 N.J.

1977Super. 1 , 262 A.2d 41 (1970); Story v. Hults, 19 N.Y.2d 936 , 281 N.Y.S.2d 342 , 228 N.E.2d 398 (1967); Hunter v. State, 25 Ohio Misc. 117 , 266 N.E.2d 599 (1970); Stratikos v. Department of Motor Vehicles, 4 Or.App. 313 , 477 P.2d 237 , 478 P.2d 654 (1970); Commonwealth v. Morris, 218 Pa.Super. 347 , 280 A.2d 658 (1971); State v. Dellveneri, 128 Vt. 85 , 258 A.2d 834 (1969); Deaner v. Commonwealth, 210 Va. 285 , 170 S.E.2d 199 (1969).

1977See Rust v. Department of Motor Vehicles, Div. of Driver’s Lic., 267 Cal.App.2d 545 , 73 Cal. Reptr. 366, 367 (1968) (‘A suspected drunk driver has refused to take the blood alcohol test when he conditioned his consent on having counsel present; he is not entitled to the advice of counsel in connection with the test * * *.’); Mills v. Bridges, 93 Idaho 679 , 471 P.2d 66 (1970); State v. Palmer, 291 Minn. 302 , 191 N.W.2d 188 (1971); Rusho v. Johns, 186 Neb. 131 , 181 N.W.2d 448 (1970); State v. Pandoli, 109 N.J.

1977Super. 1 , 262 A.2d 41 (1970); Story v. Hults, 19 N.Y.2d 936 , 281 N.Y.S.2d 342 , 228 N.E.2d 398 (1967); Hunter v. State, 25 Ohio Misc. 117 , 266 N.E.2d 599 (1970); Stratikos v. Department of Motor Vehicles, 4 Or.App. 313 , 477 P.2d 237 , 478 P.2d 654 (1970); Commonwealth v. Morris, 218 Pa.Super. 347 , 280 A.2d 658 (1971); State v. Dellveneri, 128 Vt. 85 , 258 A.2d 834 (1969); Deaner v. Commonwealth, 210 Va. 285 , 170 S.E.2d 199 (1969).

1977Super. 1 , 262 A.2d 41 (1970); Story v. Hults, 19 N.Y.2d 936 , 281 N.Y.S.2d 342 , 228 N.E.2d 398 (1967); Hunter v. State, 25 Ohio Misc. 117 , 266 N.E.2d 599 (1970); Stratikos v. Department of Motor Vehicles, 4 Or.App. 313 , 477 P.2d 237 , 478 P.2d 654 (1970); Commonwealth v. Morris, 218 Pa.Super. 347 , 280 A.2d 658 (1971); State v. Dellveneri, 128 Vt. 85 , 258 A.2d 834 (1969); Deaner v. Commonwealth, 210 Va. 285 , 170 S.E.2d 199 (1969).