Schmidt v. State

• Citation: 816 N.E.2d 925
• Decision Date: 28 October 2004
• Docket Number: No. 29A05-0312-CR-666.,29A05-0312-CR-666.
• Parties: Christopher SCHMIDT, Appellant-Defendant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff.
• Court: Court of Appeals of Indiana

816 N.E.2d 925

Christopher SCHMIDT, Appellant-Defendant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff.

No. 29A05-0312-CR-666.

Court of Appeals of Indiana.

October 28, 2004.

Bryan L. Cook, Indianapolis, IN, Attorney for Appellant.

Steve Carter, Attorney General of Indiana, Matthew D. Fisher, Deputy Attorney General, Indianapolis, IN, Attorneys for Appellee.

OPINION

NAJAM, Judge.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

In May 2002, the State charged Christopher Schmidt with one count of Operating a Vehicle While Intoxicated ("OWI"), as a Class A misdemeanor, and one count of OWI, as a Class C misdemeanor. By separate information, the State charged Schmidt with two counts of OWI, both as Class D felonies, based on a prior OWI conviction. In the first part of Schmidt's bifurcated trial, the jury found him guilty of OWI, as a Class A misdemeanor, and OWI, as a Class C misdemeanor. Schmidt waived his right to a jury trial on the enhancement phase, and the trial court found him guilty of both Class D felony OWI enhancements. The trial court entered judgment of conviction on one count of OWI, as a Class D felony, and sentenced Schmidt to three years, with all but thirty days suspended. The court also imposed two years' probation and ordered that Schmidt's license be suspended for one year. Schmidt now appeals and presents the following issues for review:

1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion when it instructed the jury that if it found that Schmidt had refused to submit to a chemical test, it could consider that refusal as evidence of Schmidt's intoxication.

2. Whether the trial court abused its discretion when it excluded certain expert witness testimony.

3. Whether the trial court abused its discretion when it admitted evidence that Schmidt had refused to submit to a chemical breath test.

4. Whether the State committed prosecutorial misconduct during closing argument.

5. Whether the trial court abused its discretion when it allowed the State to question a defense expert witness about statistics contained in a National Traffic Highway Safety Administration ("NTHSA") manual.

We affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

At approximately 6:45 a.m. on May 24, 2002, Carmel Police Officer Michael Pitman observed Schmidt drive his black Lexus through a traffic light that had been red for approximately three seconds. Officer Pitman activated his overhead lights and pursued Schmidt for more than one mile, during which both vehicles reached speeds approaching seventy miles per hour in a fifty mile per hour zone. After the vehicles stopped, Officer Pitman approached Schmidt's vehicle and noticed "a strong odor of alcoholic beverage coming from inside the vehicle." Transcript at 102. The officer also observed that Schmidt's "eyes were kind of red and bloodshot." Id. Officer Pitman asked Schmidt for his license and registration. Initially, Schmidt provided the officer with his license and his vehicle insurance card. He later provided his vehicle registration. The officer told Schmidt that he smelled alcohol in the car, and Schmidt stated that he drank alcohol the previous night, but that he had stopped drinking at approximately 11:00 p.m.

Next, Officer Pitman asked Schmidt to exit his car, and Schmidt complied. The officer administered two field sobriety tests, namely, the walk-and-turn test and the one-leg-stand test, both of which Schmidt failed. Officer Pitman then arrested Schmidt and placed him in his police vehicle. En route to the Hamilton County Jail, Officer Pitman read to Schmidt Indiana's implied consent law, which the officer had printed on a card. Specifically, the officer stated to Schmidt: "I have probable cause to believe that you have operated a vehicle while intoxicated. I must now offer you the opportunity to submit to a chemical test. Will you take a chemical test?" Id. at 115. The officer also explained to Schmidt that his refusal to submit to a test would result in his license being suspended for one year. Schmidt refused to take a chemical test.

The State charged Schmidt with two counts of OWI, and then two counts of OWI as an enhancement. On the first day of trial, the trial court granted portions of the State's Motion in Limine regarding particular testimony from Dr. Daniel McCoy, one of Schmidt's expert witnesses. During his offer of proof, Schmidt explained that Dr. McCoy, a toxicologist, would have testified in relevant part that given various factors like Schmidt's height, weight, and the amount of alcohol he had consumed on the night before his arrest, Schmidt's blood alcohol content would have been below the legal limit. The court also granted the portion of the State's motion that sought to exclude certain witnesses from testifying about Schmidt's medical history.

The State presented testimony from Officer Pitman and Fred Ilnicki, a sergeant with the Indianapolis Police Department who had watched the videotape of Schmidt performing the field sobriety tests, to prove that Schmidt was intoxicated on the morning in question. Schmidt presented one witness at trial, William Bennett, a private investigator and former law enforcement officer who is certified by the NTHSA to conduct field sobriety tests. Like Sergeant Ilnicki, Bennett had also watched the videotape of Schmidt performing the field sobriety tests. In Bennett's opinion, Schmidt did not fail those tests. During his testimony, Bennett frequently referred to guidelines and procedures in an NTHSA manual. On cross-examination, the State asked Bennett, over Schmidt's objection, about particular statistics published in that NTHSA manual regarding field sobriety tests. The trial court did not allow Bennett to testify about Schmidt's medical conditions or give an opinion on whether those conditions affected his performance during the field sobriety tests. At the conclusion of Bennett's testimony, Schmidt made his offer of proof regarding Dr. McCoy's testimony.

During closing argument, the State commented in relevant part that Officer Pitman's testimony was the "sole testimony" the jury had to consider regarding Schmidt's driving on the morning of May 24, 2002. Id. at 316. Schmidt's counsel did not object to the statement, and the jury found Schmidt guilty as charged. Schmidt now appeals.

DISCUSSION AND DECISION

Issue One: Jury Instructions

First, Schmidt asserts that the trial court abused its discretion when it instructed the jury in relevant part as follows:

COURT'S FINAL INSTRUCTION NO. 9

If you find that the Defendant refused to submit to a chemical test, after being advised of the consequences, you may consider the refusal as evidence of intoxication.

Appellant's App. at 40.¹ Schmidt contends that that instruction is improper because it emphasizes particular evidence, namely, his refusal to submit to a chemical breath test.

Instruction of the jury is left to the sound judgment of the trial court and will not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion. Stoltmann v. State, 793 N.E.2d 275, 279 (Ind.Ct.App.2003) (quotations omitted), trans. denied. Jury instructions are not to be considered in isolation, but as a whole and in reference to each other. Id. at 279-80. The instructions must be a complete, accurate statement of the law which will not confuse or mislead the jury. Id. at 280 (quotations omitted).

Whether it is proper to instruct a jury that a defendant's refusal to submit to a breath test may be considered as evidence of either guilt or intoxication is a question currently being debated among members of this court. For example, in Luckhart v. State, 780 N.E.2d 1165, 1168 (Ind.Ct.App.2003), the trial court instructed the jury that "[t]he defendant's refusal to submit to a chemical test for intoxication may be considered as evidence of Defendant's guilt of driving while intoxicated." (Brackets original). The panel in that case relied on Hurt v. State, 553 N.E.2d 1243, 1249 (Ind.Ct.App.1990), which involved a challenge to a similar instruction, to conclude that the instruction was neither confusing nor misleading. Id. Specifically, the panel in Luckhart stated:

In this case, as in Hurt, the trial court's instructions repeatedly referenced the issue of Luckhart's guilt, and expressly set forth the elements that had to be proved to establish Luckhart's guilt. It might have been more accurate for the trial court to have instructed the jury that Luckhart's refusal to take a chemical breath test was evidence of his intoxication rather than evidence of his guilt of the offense of driving while intoxicated, as there is no connection between his refusal to take the test and his operation of a vehicle. Nevertheless, there was no dispute that Luckhart had been driving when he refused to take the test, and it is not likely that the jury was confused about the proper element of the offense to which the evidence pertained. Accordingly, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by giving the instruction.

Id. at 1168-69 (emphasis added).

Approximately ten months after Luckhart, another panel of this court decided Stoltmann. In that case, as in Luckhart, the trial court instructed the jury that "[a] defendant's refusal to submit to a chemical test may be considered as evidence of the defendant's guilt." 793 N.E.2d at 280. Although the panel in Stoltmann acknowledged the decisions in Hurt and Luckhart, that panel nevertheless concluded that the instruction was improper. Specifically, the panel explained:

While Stoltmann's refusal to take a chemical breath test was admissible into evidence, see Ind.Code § 9-30-6-3(b), the challenged instruction unduly emphasizes its importance. Furthermore, the instruction confuses and misleads the jury by permitting it to infer that the refusal is sufficient to establish all the elements of the offense of operating a vehicle while intoxicated, when, at best, it establishes only that he refused to take the test.

Our supreme court recently disapproved the use of an analogous instruction. In [Dill v. State, 741

...