Dannie Carl Pattison v. State of Indiana

Summary

The Indiana Supreme Court affirmed Dannie Carl Pattison’s conviction for operating a vehicle with an alcohol concentration equivalent of 0.08 or more. The Court held that a jury instruction tracking Indiana Code section 9-30-6-15(b), which created a mandatory but rebuttable presumption based on a chemical test conducted within three hours, did not unconstitutionally shift the State’s burden of proof. Because the instruction was not erroneous, the Court found no fundamental error despite Pattison’s failure to object at trial.

Holdings

1. Instruction 6 created a mandatory but rebuttable presumption, and that presumption was constitutionally permissible because it did not relieve the State of its burden to prove every element of operating a vehicle with an alcohol concentration equivalent of at least 0.08 beyond a reasonable doubt.
2. The instruction did not constitute fundamental error, because it did not shift the State's burden of proof or make a fair trial impossible.

Questions Presented

1. Whether a jury instruction stating that the jury shall presume the defendant had an alcohol concentration equivalent of at least 0.08 at the time of driving, while also stating that the presumption was rebuttable, unconstitutionally shifted the State's burden of proof.
2. Whether the challenged instruction constituted fundamental error warranting reversal despite Pattison's failure to object at trial.

Disposition

affirmed