Dannie Carl Pattison v. State of Indiana ( 2015 )


Menu:
  •                                                                      Dec 04 2015, 8:47 am
    ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT                                    ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
    Jerry T. Drook                                            Gregory F. Zoeller
    Marion, Indiana                                           Attorney General of Indiana
    Larry D. Allen
    Deputy Attorney General
    Indianapolis, Indiana
    IN THE
    COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
    Dannie Carl Pattison,                                     December 4, 2015
    Appellant-Defendant,                                      Court of Appeals Case No.
    27A05-1411-CR-517
    v.                                                Appeal from the Grant Superior
    Court
    State of Indiana,                                         The Honorable Warren Haas, Judge
    Trial Court Cause No.
    Appellee-Plaintiff.
    27D03-1303-FD-110
    May, Judge.
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 27A05-1411-CR-517 | December 4, 2015                  Page 1 of 12
    [1]   Dannie Carl Pattison appeals his conviction of Class D felony operating a vehicle
    with an alcohol concentration equivalent (ACE) of .08% or more with a prior
    conviction within the last five years. 1 Pattison asserts a jury instruction included a
    constitutionally impermissible evidentiary presumption that shifted the burden of
    proof to him on an element of the offense.
    [2]   We reverse.
    Facts and Procedural History
    [3]   On March 3, 2013, around 1:30 a.m., Jonesboro Police Officer Justin Chambers
    stopped Pattison’s car because the taillights were not working. Officer Chambers
    activated his lights in order to pull Pattison over. Pattison did not stop until he
    pulled into his own driveway, approximately five hundred feet later. Officer
    Chambers pulled into the driveway behind Pattison.
    [4]   Pattison pulled himself out of the car as Officer Chambers approached. Pattison
    did not provide his driver’s license when requested. Officer Chambers noticed
    Pattison had “watery eyes and slurred speech and . . . a strong odor of . . . an
    alcoholic beverage.” (Tr. at 11.) Pattison “stated that he had had a couple of beers
    earlier that night.” (Id. at 12.) Officer Chambers decided to conduct field sobriety
    tests.
    1
    Ind. Code § 9-30-5-1(a) (2001) & Ind. Code § 9-30-5-3(a)(1) (2008).
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 27A05-1411-CR-517 | December 4, 2015   Page 2 of 12
    [5]   Pattison claimed that, due to prior injuries, he could perform only the horizontal
    gaze nystagmus (“HGN”) test. Pattison failed that test and a portable breathalyzer
    test. After being advised of Indiana’s implied consent law, Pattison agreed to a
    certified chemical test. That test indicated his alcohol concentration equivalent
    (“ACE”) was .10%. Pattison was arrested and charged with operating a vehicle
    with an ACE of .08% or more.
    [6]   The jury first found Pattison guilty of Class C misdemeanor operating a vehicle
    with an ACE of .08% or more. Then the State presented evidence of Pattison’s
    prior convictions, which Pattison did not contest. The jury found Pattison guilty of
    Class D felony operating a vehicle with an ACE of 0.08% or more, with a prior
    conviction within five (5) years. The trial court pronounced a three-year sentence.
    Discussion and Decision
    [7]   Pattison challenges a jury instruction. “The manner of instructing a jury is left to
    the sound discretion of the trial court.” Albores v. State, 
    987 N.E.2d 98
    , 99 (Ind. Ct.
    App. 2013), trans. denied. We reverse only if the instructions are an abuse of
    discretion, Munford v. State, 
    923 N.E.2d 11
    , 14 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010), which occurs
    when an instruction is erroneous and the instructions, taken as a whole, misstate
    the law or mislead the jury. 
    Id. [8] Pattison
    did not object at trial to the jury instruction now challenged. An issue is
    waived for appellate review unless a party objected to the alleged error at trial.
    Lewis v. State, 
    34 N.E.3d 240
    , 246 (Ind. 2015). Despite waiver, relief remains
    available under a narrow exception for fundamental error. 
    Id. A fundamental
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 27A05-1411-CR-517 | December 4, 2015   Page 3 of 12
    error is one that “constitutes a blatant violation of basic principles, the harm or
    potential for harm is substantial, and the resulting error denies the defendant
    fundamental due process.” 
    Id. (quoting Mathews
    v. State, 
    849 N.E.2d 578
    , 587 (Ind.
    2006)).
    [9]   Pattison asserts the challenged instruction resulted in fundamental error because it
    contained a constitutionally impermissible evidentiary presumption. An
    evidentiary presumption is an “assumption that a fact exists because of the known
    or proven existence of some other fact or group of facts.” Black’s Law Dictionary
    1376 (10th ed. 2014). When the law requires one fact to be assumed based on
    another fact or other facts, the presumption created is mandatory. 2 Sturgeon v.
    State, 
    575 N.E.2d 679
    , 680 n.4 (Ind. Ct. App. 1991). Mandatory presumptions can
    be conclusive or rebuttable. 
    Id. “A conclusive
    presumption removes the presumed
    element from the case once the State has proved the predicate facts.” 
    Id. A rebuttable
    presumption “does not remove the presumed element from the case” but
    requires the jury to presume it to be true unless the defendant persuades them
    otherwise. 
    Id. [10] As
      Black’s further explains:
    Most presumptions are rules of evidence calling for a certain result in a
    given case unless the adversely affected party overcomes it with other
    evidence. A presumption shifts the burden of production or
    2
    When the law permits, but does not require, a factual conclusion to be drawn based on other facts known or
    proven, a permissive inference has been created. Sturgeon v. State, 
    575 N.E.2d 679
    , 680 n.4 (Ind. Ct. App.
    1991).
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 27A05-1411-CR-517 | December 4, 2015                     Page 4 of 12
    persuasion to the opposing party, who can then attempt to overcome
    the presumption.
    [11] Black’s   Law Dictionary 1376. Both conclusive and rebuttable mandatory
    presumptions “violate the Due Process Clause if they relieve the State of the
    burden of persuasion on an element of a criminal offense.” 
    Sturgeon, 575 N.E.2d at 680
    . See also Collins v. State, 
    567 N.E.2d 798
    , 801 (Ind. 1991) (Regarding
    instruction that informed jury evidence of letter being mailed was prima facie proof
    that it was received, the court held: “Even though the instruction made the
    presumption rebuttable, a mandatory rebuttable presumption is no less
    unconstitutional.”).
    [12] With   this background in mind, we turn to the instruction Pattison challenges. To
    prove Pattison guilty as charged, the State had to present evidence he “operate[d] a
    vehicle with an alcohol concentration equivalent [ACE] to at least eight-
    hundredths (0.08) gram of alcohol . . . per . . . two hundred ten (210) liters of the
    person’s breath.” Ind. Code § 9-30-5-1. At a trial for such charge, evidence of the
    driver’s ACE at the time of driving or within three hours thereof is admissible.
    Ind. Code § 9-30-6-15(a) (certain ACE evidence is admissible) & Ind. Code § 9-30-
    6-2 (if tested within three hours).
    [13] Furthermore,    our legislature has provided:
    If, in a prosecution for an offense under IC 9-30-5, evidence establishes
    that:
    (1) a chemical test was performed on a test sample taken from the
    person charged with the offense within the period of time allowed for
    testing under section 2 of this chapter; and
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 27A05-1411-CR-517 | December 4, 2015       Page 5 of 12
    (2) the person charged with the offense had an alcohol concentration
    equivalent to at least eight-hundredths (0.08) gram of alcohol per:
    (A) one hundred (100) milliliters of the person’s blood at the
    time the test sample was taken; or
    (B) two hundred ten (210) liters of the person’s breath;
    the trier of fact shall presume that the person charged with the offense
    had an alcohol concentration equivalent [ACE] to at least eight-
    hundredths (0.08) gram of alcohol per one hundred (100) milliliters of
    the person’s blood or per two hundred ten (210) liters of the person’s
    breath at the time the person operated the vehicle. However, this
    presumption is rebuttable.
    Ind. Code § 9-30-6-15(b). 3
    [14] Because   Pattison’s test was administered within the permissible time frame and his
    BAC was .10%, the trial court gave the following jury instruction:
    Rebuttable Presumption
    If in a prosecution for operating a vehicle with at least eight-
    hundredths (0.08) gram of alcohol in 210 liters of the breath, if
    evidence establishes that:
    •   a chemical test was performed within three (3) hours after the
    law enforcement officer had probable cause to believe the
    person committed the crime; and
    •   the person charged with the offense had an alcohol
    concentration equivalent to at least eight-hundredths (0.08)
    gram of alcohol per two hundred ten (210) liters of the person’s
    breath;
    3
    Our Legislature enacted the first version of this statute shortly after our court held ACE results from a test
    taken after an arrest were sufficiently relevant to be admissible as to the question of ACE at the time of
    driving, but that such results could not prove ACE at the time of driving. See Hall v. State, 
    560 N.E.2d 561
    ,
    563 (Ind. Ct. App. 1990) (“Shortly after the Smith [v. State, 
    502 N.E.2d 122
    , 123 (Ind. Ct. App. 1986), trans.
    denied, superseded by statute] case, the legislature added” the subsection.).
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 27A05-1411-CR-517 | December 4, 2015                           Page 6 of 12
    the jury shall presume that the person charged with the offense had an
    alcohol concentration equivalent to at least eight-hundredths (0.08)
    gram of alcohol per two hundred ten (210) liters of the person’s breath
    at the time the person operated the vehicle. However, the presumption
    is rebuttable.
    [15] (App.    at 33.) Pattison argues the presumption created in that instruction
    unconstitutionally shifted the burden of proof to him.
    [16] In   1989, we first addressed the constitutionality of the statutory presumption that
    underlies the instruction given to Pattison’s jury. Chilcutt v. State, 
    544 N.E.2d 856
    ,
    857-58 (Ind. Ct. App. 1989), trans. denied. Chilcutt argued the statute
    “unconstitutionally shifted the burden of proof away from the State, effectively
    requiring him to prove his innocence.” 
    Id. at 857.
    We held
    the State did prove each element of the offense beyond a reasonable
    doubt. The defendant admitted operating the vehicle and the State
    proved that a proper and reliable blood alcohol test was given to him.
    The test results, showing that defendant had a .17% blood alcohol
    content, were entered into evidence. In addition, the State also had
    the following testimony of Officer Jolley: “[Chilcutt] stated that he had
    not had anything to drink since the accident.”
    In 22A C.J.S. Criminal Law § 579, pp. 331-332, it is stated:
    “The legislature may enact laws declaring that, on proof of one
    fact, another fact may be inferred or presumed, and such
    enactments are constitutional, provided no constitutional right
    of accused is destroyed thereby, the presumption is subject to
    rebuttal, and there is some rational connection between the fact
    proved and the ultimate fact presumed.”
    22A C.J.S. Criminal Law § 579.
    There is a rational connection in IND.CODE § 9-11-4-15 [now
    codified at Ind. Code § 9-30-6-15] between the fact proved and the
    ultimate fact presumed. The fact proved is the person had a blood
    alcohol content of at least .10% at the time the test sample was taken,
    which was within the specified period of time. This leads to the
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 27A05-1411-CR-517 | December 4, 2015        Page 7 of 12
    ultimate fact presumed that within this time period when the
    defendant had been operating his vehicle he had at least a blood
    alcohol content of .10%.
    Presumptions in criminal statutes are not considered conclusive and do
    not affect the burden of proof, but shift the burden of going forward
    with evidence to the defendant. 22A C.J.S. Criminal Law § 579 (1988
    Supp.). The State remains responsible for proving the necessary
    elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. The defendant’s
    constitutional rights have not been destroyed. The presumption is
    rebuttable and the defendant may produce evidence to overcome the
    presumption.
    [Chilcutt] argues that he is having to prove his innocence by producing
    evidence of post-accident consumption of alcohol. While the State
    must establish all the elements of the crime, it does not have the
    burden of negating all affirmative defenses which excuse or exempt the
    defendant. . . . .
    Post-accident consumption of alcohol is regarded as an affirmative
    defense. . . . Thus, defendant had the burden of establishing this
    defense and none of his constitutional rights were destroyed thereby.
    
    Chilcutt, 544 N.E.2d at 858
    .
    [17] Then,   a year later, in Hall, we held that, although Chilcutt properly determined the
    statute creating the presumption was constitutional, a jury instruction that tracked
    the language of the statute was erroneous because it ran the risk of misleading a
    jury into thinking the presumption was mandatory, rather than permissive:
    We agree with our Third District that the language contained in the
    instruction does not create a conclusive presumption nor shift the
    burden of proof to defendant.
    This is not to say, however, that the mandatory language of the statute
    and instruction compels the trier of fact to accept the presumption
    when the defendant falls somewhat short of rebutting it. The statute
    and instruction do not create and implement a conclusive
    presumption. They do however appear to contemplate a mandatory
    presumption.
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 27A05-1411-CR-517 | December 4, 2015       Page 8 of 12
    The instruction does not advise that the presumption is permissive in
    the sense that the jury may accept or reject it and is not compelled to
    find the presumed fact even if the defendant does not come forward
    with evidence to rebut the presumption. To the contrary, the
    instruction tracks the statute. The statute appears to create a
    mandatory presumption and states that the jury “shall presume” unless
    the presumption has been rebutted.
    Chilcutt v. State held that the statute does not excuse the State from
    proving each and every element of the offense beyond a reasonable
    doubt and that it does not shift the burden of proof as to any such
    element to the defendant. In light of this holding we are constrained to
    state that notwithstanding the phrase “shall presume,” the statute does
    not create a mandatory presumption. We hold therefore that even in a
    case in which the defendant does not rebut or attempt to rebut the
    presumption, the trier of fact is not compelled to find the presumed
    fact of blood alcohol content at the time of vehicle operation from the
    proved fact of blood alcohol content at the time of later testing. The
    jury is free to accept the presumption or not, just as it is free to do with
    other evidence.
    Accordingly, the instruction although faithfully tracking the language
    of the statute, was subject to a mandatory interpretation which could
    have misled the jury with regard to its duty and prerogatives.
    In its brief the State acknowledges that the Unites States Supreme
    Court has repudiated mandatory presumptions and mandatory
    rebuttable presumptions. It also recognizes that the words “shall be
    presumed” have been held in other jurisdictions to create only a
    permissive presumption.
    We now hold likewise. Furthermore, we hold that an instruction
    which embraces the statute must clearly advise the jury that the
    presumption is only permissive. The instruction given in this case did
    not do so.
    Accordingly, we reverse the judgment and remand for a new trial.
    
    Hall, 560 N.E.2d at 563-64
    (internal citations omitted).
    [18] We   have reaffirmed the reasoning of Chilcutt and Hall on a number of occasions.
    See Disbro v. State, 
    791 N.E.2d 774
    , 778 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) (finding no error in
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 27A05-1411-CR-517 | December 4, 2015         Page 9 of 12
    jury instruction that included statutory language but also informed jury the
    presumption could be rejected even if not rebutted by other evidence), trans. denied;
    Finney v. State, 
    686 N.E.2d 133
    , 135 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997) (statute creating
    presumption, Ind. Code § 9-30-6-15, is constitutional); Thompson v. State, 
    646 N.E.2d 687
    , passim (Ind. Ct. App. 1995) (no error when jury instructed the
    presumption created by Ind. Code § 9-30-6-15 was both rebuttable and permissive,
    such that jury could reject the presumption), trans. denied; Regan v. State, 
    950 N.E.2d 640
    , 645 (Ind. Ct. App. 1992) (Ind. Code § 9-11-4-15 is constitutional, and
    jury instructions as a whole created no error when language of Ind. Code § 9-11-4-
    15 supplemented with language informing jury that BAC alone was insufficient to
    prove the element of ‘intoxication’ and that defendant had no burden to present
    evidence to rebut the BAC evidence); 
    Sturgeon, 575 N.E.2d at 681
    (jury instruction
    that tracked language of Ind. Code § 9-11-4-15 was constitutional error).
    [19] As   the instruction given to Pattison’s jury is essentially the same instruction given
    in Hall, that instruction was erroneous. 4 See 
    Sturgeon, 575 N.E.2d at 681
    (instruction tracking statutory language created constitutional error); Hall, 560
    4
    The trial court indicated “we have, in the pattern instructions, things that are helpful, but I don’t think that
    they’re really, um, simple to follow.” (Tr. at 80.) Unlike the constitutionally infirm instruction that was
    given to the jury, the pattern jury instruction on this point of law at the time of Pattison’s trial explained: “It
    creates an inference that the Defendant was sufficiently under the influence of alcohol to lessen Defendant’s
    driving ability so as to be intoxicated within the meaning of the law. This inference is not conclusive. You
    may accept it or reject it.” Ind. Pattern Jury Instr. – Crim No. 7.117. In 2014, the instruction was updated to
    read: “[Y]ou may infer that the Defendant was sufficiently under the influence of alcohol to lessen
    Defendant’s driving ability so as to be intoxicated within the meaning of the law. You are not required to
    make this inference. You may accept it or reject it.” Ind. Pattern Jury Instr. – Crim No. 7.4240. As such,
    the Pattern Jury Instruction was, and is, a more constitutionally appropriate statement of the inference
    allowed.
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 27A05-1411-CR-517 | December 4, 2015                           Page 10 
    of 12 N.E.2d at 564
    (“instruction which embraces the statute must clearly advise the jury
    that the presumption is only permissive”).
    [20] A   single erroneous instruction, however, need not render the trial court’s entire
    charge to the jury an abuse of discretion if other instructions correct the error
    created by the erroneous instruction. See, e.g., 
    Regan, 950 N.E.2d at 645
    (no error
    when statutory language supplemented with other language). The State points out
    that the jury received a “Presumption of Innocence” instruction that explained the
    State was responsible to prove “each element of the crime charged . . . [and] Mr.
    Pattison was not required to present any evidence to prove his innocence or to
    prove or explain anything.” (Appellee’s Br. at 11.) However, that instruction
    about the presumption of innocence does not correct the improper presumption
    created by the statute-based instruction at issue. See Sturgeon, 
    575 N.E.2d 682
    (“General instructions on the State’s burden of persuasion and the defendant’s
    presumption of innocence are not inconsistent with the burden-shifting
    presumption and therefore do nothing to lessen the harm.”). Accordingly the
    challenged instruction created constitutional error. See 
    id. (holding instruction
    created error).
    [21] Nevertheless,     as the State contends, an instruction that impermissibly shifts the
    burden of proof “does not . . . automatically require the reversal of an otherwise
    valid conviction” because even instructions that improperly shift the burden of
    proof can be harmless. 
    Id. Instructional error
    does “not require reversal of a
    conviction where, after review of the entire record, the reviewing court concludes
    the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” 
    Collins, 567 N.E.2d at 801
    .
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 27A05-1411-CR-517 | December 4, 2015   Page 11 of 12
    [22] Unlike   Regan, 
    950 N.E.2d 640
    , in which the defendant was charged with a version
    of driving while intoxicated that permitted the jury to find the defendant guilty
    based on his physical characteristics and behavior, Pattison was charged only with
    driving while intoxicated with an ACE over .08%. As Pattison did not challenge
    that he was driving, the presumption created by the erroneous instruction shifted
    the burden of proof to Pattison on the only contested element in the case. In this
    situation, we cannot say the instructional error was harmless. See, e.g., 
    Sturgeon, 575 N.E.2d at 683
    (unable to hold error harmless where evidence of Sturgeon’s
    “appearance of intoxication” was inconclusive and conflicting). Accordingly, we
    must reverse.
    Conclusion
    [23] Because   the error caused by the court’s constitutionally infirm jury instruction was
    neither corrected by the court’s other instructions nor harmless based on the other
    evidence presented, we must reverse Pattison’s conviction.
    [24] Reversed.
    Robb, J., and Mathias, J., concur.
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 27A05-1411-CR-517 | December 4, 2015   Page 12 of 12
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 27A05-1411-CR-517

Judges: Robb, Mathias

Filed Date: 12/4/2015

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 11/11/2024