Hall v. State, No. 3-1076A227

Docket NºNo. 3-1076A227
Citation367 N.E.2d 1103, 174 Ind.App. 334
Case DateSeptember 28, 1977
CourtCourt of Appeals of Indiana

Page 1103

367 N.E.2d 1103
174 Ind.App. 334
Doris J. HALL, Appellant (Defendant Below),
v.
STATE of Indiana, Appellee (Plaintiff Below).
No. 3-1076A227.
Court of Appeals of Indiana, Third District.
Sept. 28, 1977.

Page 1105

Thomas W. Munger, Lafayette, for appellant.

Theo. L. Sendak, Atty. Gen., David L. Steiner, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.

STATON, Presiding Judge.

Doris June Hall was tried by jury and was convicted of (1) driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor and (2) driving with reckless disregard for the safety, property, and rights of others. She contends on appeal: that her convictions were not supported by sufficient evidence; that there [174 Ind.App. 335] was fundamental error in the trial proceedings; and that she was denied a fair trial because of ineffective assistance of counsel. We affirm.

Page 1106

I.

Evidence

On appeal we will not weigh evidence or determine the credibility of witnesses. Turner v. State (1972), 258 Ind. 267, 280 N.E.2d 621. We may consider only that evidence and the reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom which support the verdict. Liston v. State (1969), 252 Ind. 502, 250 N.E.2d 739; Foster v. State (1974), 262 Ind. 567, 320 N.E.2d 745; Pfeifer v. State (1972), 152 Ind.App. 315, 283 N.E.2d 567.

The evidence most favorable to the State was that four children were walking two dogs along a blacktop country road on the afternoon of December 22, 1975. One child stated that she did not hear Hall's car coming, but she saw it "coming fast." Another child testified that she saw the car before it started up the hill, and it was going as fast as it could go about 110 or so. After the children saw the car, they tried to get behind a tree. Two of the children testified that they saw the wheels of the car turn toward them. These two children were seriously injured by Hall's car. After Hall's car struck the two children, she stopped the car and returned to see if the children were hurt. She did not act hysterical or excited.

Tommie Hammer, the mother of the two injured children, testified that Hall had been at the Hammer home the night before the accident and had been drinking vodka. Hammer stated that it was her opinion that Hall was intoxicated twenty minutes after the accident when Hall came up to her house. Two other persons also saw Hall at Tommie Hammer's home after the accident and thought that Hall was under the influence of liquor.

The accident occurred between 2:30 and 3:00 P.M. After the children were taken to the hospital, Hall left Hammer's residence and went to her own home. The sheriff's department requested that the town marshal pick her up there at about 5:30 P.M. Hall [174 Ind.App. 336] admitted that after the accident and after leaving the Hammer home she drank half of a half-pint bottle of vodka, and that she finished it while the town marshal was standing in the front room. She was given a breathalyzer test at 6:00 or 6:30 P.M.; her rights were not read to her before she finally submitted to the test. The test produced a reading of .235 percent of blood alcohol. The results of the breathalyzer test were admitted into evidence; Hall did not object. Later, the State tendered an instruction concerning the percentage of alcohol in the blood; the trial court modified the instruction slightly, and it was given:

"I instruct you that if you are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that at the time and place charged in the information herein the defendant operated a motor vehicle upon a public highway of this State and that at the time of such operation there was 10/100ths percent or more by weight of alcohol in her blood, the fact, if it be a fact, that there was 10/100ths percent by weight of alcohol in her blood may be considered by you as evidence that the defendant was under the influence of intoxicating liquor sufficient to lessen her driving ability within the meaning of a statutory definition of this offense."

II.

Convictions

A. Driving While Under the Influence

Hall contends that the trial court committed error when it admitted the results of the breathalyzer test into evidence. Further error was committed by the trial court when it later gave an instruction on blood alcohol content. She contends that no connection had ever been made by the State between her state of intoxication when the test was conducted and her state of intoxication when she was driving the car. However, when the test results were offered in evidence by the State, Hall did not make any objection to the admissibility of the test. Where no objection has been made to the evidence admitted or to the instruction given, any error which may have been committed by the trial court is waived on appeal. Hartwell v. State...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 practice notes
  • Taylor v. State, No. 4-1282A384
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • December 19, 1983
    ...3 Both the driver Page 597 and the passenger in the westbound vehicle died as a result of the collision. Citing Hall v. State, (1977) 174 Ind.App. 334, 367 N.E.2d 1103, the State refutes Taylor's claim of insufficiency, correctly claiming that excessive speed and the fact that a defendant h......
  • McNary v. State, No. 681S170
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • December 17, 1981
    ...v. State, (1973) 260 Ind. 618, 298 N.E.2d 445; Pinkerton v. State, (1972) 258 Ind. 610, 283 N.E.2d 376; Hall v. State, (1977) Ind.App., 367 N.E.2d 1103; Henderson v. State, (1977) 173 Ind.App. 505, 364 N.E.2d Defendant concomitantly contends the trial court erred in refusing to give his ten......
  • Willis v. State Of Ind., No. 82A05-1006-CR-409
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • January 11, 2011
    ...breath, the defendant was uncooperative, unsteady, slurred his speech, and his eyes were red, watery, and bloodshot); Hall v. State, 174 Ind. App. 334, 336-337, 367 N.E.2d 1103, 1106-1107 (1977) (holding that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the defendant's conviction for driving whil......
  • Kremer v. State, No. 61A04-9311-CR-424
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • November 21, 1994
    ...was enough to support the conviction even though the defendant passed dexterity tests given at the scene); Hall v. State (1977), 174 Ind.App. 334, 367 N.E.2d 1103, 1107, reh'g denied (holding that evidence showing that the car smelled of alcohol, the defendant was driving very fast, and the......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
6 cases
  • Taylor v. State, No. 4-1282A384
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • December 19, 1983
    ...3 Both the driver Page 597 and the passenger in the westbound vehicle died as a result of the collision. Citing Hall v. State, (1977) 174 Ind.App. 334, 367 N.E.2d 1103, the State refutes Taylor's claim of insufficiency, correctly claiming that excessive speed and the fact that a defendant h......
  • McNary v. State, No. 681S170
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • December 17, 1981
    ...v. State, (1973) 260 Ind. 618, 298 N.E.2d 445; Pinkerton v. State, (1972) 258 Ind. 610, 283 N.E.2d 376; Hall v. State, (1977) Ind.App., 367 N.E.2d 1103; Henderson v. State, (1977) 173 Ind.App. 505, 364 N.E.2d Defendant concomitantly contends the trial court erred in refusing to give his ten......
  • Willis v. State Of Ind., No. 82A05-1006-CR-409
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • January 11, 2011
    ...breath, the defendant was uncooperative, unsteady, slurred his speech, and his eyes were red, watery, and bloodshot); Hall v. State, 174 Ind. App. 334, 336-337, 367 N.E.2d 1103, 1106-1107 (1977) (holding that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the defendant's conviction for driving whil......
  • Kremer v. State, No. 61A04-9311-CR-424
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • November 21, 1994
    ...was enough to support the conviction even though the defendant passed dexterity tests given at the scene); Hall v. State (1977), 174 Ind.App. 334, 367 N.E.2d 1103, 1107, reh'g denied (holding that evidence showing that the car smelled of alcohol, the defendant was driving very fast, and the......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT