Smith v. State
| Decision Date | 13 June 2001 |
| Docket Number | No. 07A01-0007-CR-245.,07A01-0007-CR-245. |
| Citation | 751 N.E.2d 280 |
| Parties | Reid R. SMITH, Appellant-Defendant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff. |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Samuel S. Shapiro, Bloomington, Indiana, Attorney for Appellant.
Steve Carter, Attorney General of Indiana, Eileen Euzen, Deputy Attorney General, Indianapolis, Indiana, Attorneys for Appellee.
Reid R. Smith was convicted following a jury trial of Operating a Vehicle While Intoxicated ("OWI"), as a Class A misdemeanor. Smith stipulated that he had a prior OWI conviction within the past five years, and the trial court entered a judgment of conviction as a Class D felony. He appeals, presenting the following restated issues for our review:1
1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion when it admitted evidence of field sobriety tests without a scientific foundation.
2. Whether the trial court abused its discretion when it excluded the results of the portable breath test ("PBT") administered by police.
We affirm.
On September 20, 1998, at approximately 4:30 a.m., Nashville Police Officers Easterday and Griggs were dispatched to the scene of a single-car accident on State Road 46 west of Nashville. Upon their arrival, they observed Smith's car sitting in a ditch approximately twenty feet from the roadway. Although Smith had been driving toward Bloomington, his car was facing toward Nashville. When Officer Easterday approached Smith, he noticed a strong odor of alcohol on Smith's breath. Smith told Officer Easterday that he had consumed a few "shift drinks" before leaving the Seasons Lodge where he was employed as a bartender. Record at 151. Brown County Sheriff Deputies Suding and Hertz also arrived at the scene, and they noticed that Smith's breath smelled of alcohol, that his eyes were bloodshot and glassy, and that he was unsteady in standing and walking. Smith told Deputy Suding that he had taken a "shot" of alcohol earlier that night.
Deputy Suding then conducted field sobriety tests, instructing Smith to stand on one leg, walk along a straight line, count backwards, and count to four touching his thumb to each finger. Smith failed each of the tests. Deputy Suding also administered a PBT at the scene, which revealed that Smith's blood alcohol content ("BAC") was .09. Deputy Suding subsequently transported Smith to the Brown County Sheriff's Department, where Deputy Hertz administered a certified chemical breath test. The test results revealed that Smith had a BAC of .15.
Smith was charged with OWI, as a Class A misdemeanor. A jury found him guilty as charged. Judgment was entered as a Class D felony. This appeal followed.
The trial court has broad discretion in ruling on the admissibility of evidence. Small v. State, 632 N.E.2d 779, 782 (Ind.Ct.App.1994), trans. denied. We will disturb its ruling only upon a showing of abuse of that discretion. Id. An abuse of discretion may occur if the trial court's decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court, or if the court has misinterpreted the law. Baxter v. State, 734 N.E.2d 642, 645 (Ind.Ct.App.2000).
Smith first contends that the trial court abused its discretion when it admitted into evidence Deputy Suding's testimony regarding the field sobriety tests. Specifically, Smith maintains that the State failed to demonstrate a scientific basis for the proposition that field sobriety tests are reliable indicators of intoxication.
Before the results of scientific tests are admissible, the proponent of the evidence must lay a proper foundation establishing the reliability of the procedure used. Marlatt v. State, 715 N.E.2d 1001, 1002 (Ind.Ct.App.1999). "Inherent in any reliability analysis is the understanding that, as the scientific principles become more advanced and complex, the foundation required to establish reliability will necessarily become more advanced and complex as well." McGrew v. State, 682 N.E.2d 1289, 1292 (Ind.1997). The converse of that rule is also true. See id.
Indiana appellate courts have not previously considered the extent to which field sobriety test results are subject to foundational requirements for admission as evidence. Our counterparts on the Illinois Appellate Court have commented on this very issue and held that "the `walk the line,' `one leg stand,' and `finger to nose,' [tests] are not so abstruse as to require a foundation other than the experience of the officer administering them." People v. Sides, 199 Ill.App.3d 203, 145 Ill.Dec. 160, 556 N.E.2d 778, 779 (1990). We agree that the investigating officer's training and experience is the only evidentiary foundation required for the admission of field sobriety tests.
In Charley v. State, 651 N.E.2d 300 (Ind.Ct.App.1995), we addressed an analogous issue, namely, whether a scientific foundation was required to admit a police officer's testimony regarding a distance measurement. We determined that such testimony was "less scientific" than testimony regarding a breathalyzer test and concluded that:
Because there are no statutory requirements regarding the method of measurement or the operation of a measurement device, and because there is no complex scientific process necessary to obtain a measurement of distance ..., we reject Charley's contention that the State was required to offer expert testimony regarding the operation or accuracy of the measuring device used in this case. Moreover, we determine that the State is only required to show that the measuring device was accurate and was operated correctly in order to allow the admission of the distance as evidence.
Id. at 303 (citations omitted); see also McGrew, 682 N.E.2d at 1292
().
Here, likewise, the field sobriety tests at issue do not involve any complex scientific process or principles. The test results are reported as an officer's observations about a defendant's ability to perform simple tasks. And there are no statutory requirements for conducting field sobriety tests. Accordingly, we conclude that the only evidentiary foundation required for the admission of field sobriety test results is that the officer through whom the evidence is offered establish his training and experience in administering such tests.2 See, e.g., Sides, 145 Ill.Dec. 160,
556 N.E.2d at 779. Thus, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hayko v. State
...to a jury"). [43] Of course, the burden is on the proponent of the character witness to establish this foundation. Smith v. State , 751 N.E.2d 280, 283 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001) (holding that party seeking to admit evidence bears the burden of laying a foundation for the admission of such eviden......
-
Hayko v. State
... ... it can be affirmed on any basis found in the record. See ... Crawford v. State , 770 N.E.2d 775, 780 (Ind. 2002) ... However, a trial court also abuses its discretion if it has ... misinterpreted or misapplied the law. State v ... Smith , 179 N.E.3d 516, 519 (Ind.Ct.App. 2021), ... trans. denied ... Such is the case here ... [¶22] ... Evidence Rule 608 provides as follows: ... Rule 608. A Witness's Character for Truthfulness or ... Untruthfulness ... (a) Reputation or ... ...
-
State v. Whitney
...for test operators, equipment and administration and, therefore, tend to be inadmissible at trial. See, e.g., Smith v. State, 751 N.E.2d 280, 283 (Ind.Ct.App.2001) (PBT was uncertified by Department of Toxicology and therefore inadmissible at trial), aff'd on reh'g 755 N.E.2d 1150 (Ind.Ct. ......
-
Curley v. State
...the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court, or if the court has misinterpreted the law. Smith v. State, 751 N.E.2d 280, 281 (Ind.Ct.App. 2001), trans. II. Ind.Code § 9-30-6-5 Curley argues that the trial court erred when it excluded the results of the portable brea......