Opinion ID: 2224667
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Admission of Breath Test Result Was Proper

Text: Baran claims that the result of the breath test was improperly admitted because the State failed to establish the proper procedure for administering the test and that the test operator followed this procedure. Indiana law establishes the necessary foundation for admission of breath tests. Evidence of a defendant's blood alcohol content may be established by chemical tests only if the test operator, the test equipment, the chemicals used and the techniques used in the test have been approved by the Indiana Department of Toxicology. Ind. Code Ann. § 9-11-4-5 (Burns 1987). [5] As the party offering the results of the breath test, the State bears the burden of establishing this foundation. Hopkins v. State (1991), Ind., 579 N.E.2d 1297, 1303; Regan v. State (1992), Ind. App., 590 N.E.2d 640, 646. At trial, the State must establish the proper procedure, Hartman v. State (1980), Ind. App., 401 N.E.2d 723, 725, and that the operator followed that procedure. Boothe v. State (1982), Ind. App., 439 N.E.2d 708, 711. The approved procedure for operating the breath machine is set out in Indiana Administrative Code tit. 260, r. 1.1-4-4. [6] This regulation is to be judicially noticed. Ind. Code Ann. § 4-22-9-3 (Burns 1990); [7] Hatch v. State (1989), Ind. App., 547 N.E.2d 276, 277. The proper procedure for administering the test was established at trial. Baran next contends that the State failed to establish that the trooper followed these procedures. Although it is true that the trooper's testimony about the steps he performed in conducting the test was not a verbatim recitation of the procedures in the regulation, that is not required. Baran complains that there was insufficient evidence that he was kept under a continuous period of observation for twenty minutes as required in step (1). Baran vigorously cross-examined the trooper on this issue. It was for the trial court to resolve any inconsistencies in the evidence, and its determination of a fact will not be set aside unless the nonconflicting evidence supports only a result contrary to his determination. Taylor v. State (1988), Ind., 530 N.E.2d 1185, 1186. Our review of the record assures us that there was sufficient evidence from which the trial court could have concluded that the trooper properly performed each step of the procedure.