Court Opinion

ID: 9520874
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 01:52:23.775432+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:47:08.987787
License: Public Domain

SULLIVAN, Judge,
concurring.
I concur in the affirmance of this conviction. I do so because Finney did not successfully rebut the permissive presumption created by I.C. 9-30-6-15. Although the testimony of Dr. Jones cast, by inference, some adverse reflection upon the validity of the conclusion that Finney’s BAC at the time of the accident could be deduced by a single, later-conducted BAC test, such does not rise to the level of destroying the permissibility of the presumption.
In this connection, however, I disagree with the majority’s assessment of a portion of Dr. Jones’s testimony. He testified that retrograde extrapolation may only be validly done when the person is excreting, i.e. when the BAC is on the decrease. Record at 105-106. It is true, as stated by the majority, that in order to make such extrapolation, certain types of information must be available, including gender and body weight. The doctor, however, clearly stated that extrapolation cannot be done based upon a test conducted while the individual was in the absorption stage, i.e. while his BAC was on the increase.
Doctor Jones’s evidence is not inconsistent with the views held by a reputable segment of the scientific community to the effect that attempts to use retrograde extrapolation to determine BAC at an earlier time is problematical at best; and it is particularly questionable when the extrapolation is made from only a single BAC test. Edward F. Fitzgerald & David N. Hume, The Single Chemical Test for Intoxication: A Challenge to Admissibility (1981) 66 Mass.L.Rev. 23; see State v. Geisler (1990) 22 ConnApp. 142, 576 A.2d 1283 (Conn, statute requires at least two tests thirty minutes apart).
The view of these scholars is not undermined by our decision in Chilcutt v. State (1989) Ind.App., 544 N.E.2d 856. That decision stated that “[t]here is a rational connection in [the statute] between the fact proved and the ultimate fact presumed.” Id. at 858. The conclusion is unaccompanied, however, by any analysis or reference to other scientific or jurisprudential authority. See also Thompson v. State (1995) Ind.App., 646 N.E.2d 687; Hartman v. State (1993) Ind. App., 615 N.E.2d 455; Keyes v. State (1990) Ind.App., 559 N.E.2d 1216. It is more likely than not based upon the widely held premise that the peak BAC is reached relatively quickly after the last alcohol is consumed and that therefore the BAC at the time of the accident would be necessarily higher than at the time of a later administered blood test. It is assumed that the BAC will always decline steadily after arrest up to the time of the test. See Munn v. State (1975) Ark., 257 Ark. 1057, 521 S.W.2d 535; State v. Gallant (1967) 108 N.H. 72, 227 A.2d 597; Toms v. State (1952) 95 Okla.Crim. 60, 239 P.2d 812. Extrapolation is frequently deemed unnecessary utilizing the so-called “Widmark B” factor. This approach is premised upon the concept that the rate at which alcohol is eliminated from the blood is constant without *137regard to the amount of alcohol consumed or the rate of consumption. 1 Donald H. Nichols, DrinMng/Driving Litigation § 11.16 (1996). The typical rate of elimination used by experts is 0.015 grams % per hour. Id. Thus, if the BAC at the time of testing is higher than that set forth in the criminal statute, it is presumed that the BAC at the earlier time was higher than reflected by the test. However, this approach assumes that the subject, at the time of vehicle operation and at time of testing, was eliminating alcohol from the blood, and that at the time of operation, he was not still absorbing alcohol into the blood. It has been demonstrated, however, that the premise is faulted. Fitzgerald & Hume, supra. Thus, the connection between the proved fact of Finney’s 0.12% BAC at 9:06 PM and the assumed fact of a BAC of at least that level or a higher level at the time of the accident may be less “rational” than commonly thought. That we so readily admit such single-test evidence as probative and relevant may be open to question. At a future time it might be determined that BAC test evidence should not be admitted unless at least two blood samples were taken at different times and thereafter tested and unless the extrapolation takes into consideration the other relevant factors concerning the absorption rate and excretion rate of the particular individual. See State v. Stamm (1993) Ind.App., 616 N.E.2d 377 (test administered more than three hours after vehicle operation does not trigger the presumption of IC 9-30-6-15, but the test results are admissible if coupled with evidentia-ry extrapolation).
Nevertheless, Finney has not sufficiently rebutted the presumed fact so as to dictate reversal. Evidence casting doubt upon the presumption created by our General Assembly does not, under our current state of the law, render single test BAC evidence inadmissible. Rather, evidence in rebuttal of the presumption is to be weighed, and the trier of fact is at liberty to accept or reject the ultimate fact presumed, i.e. that the vehicle operator had a BAC as high or higher when operating the vehicle, as when later tested. Thompson v. State, supra; Hall v. State (1990) Ind.App., 560 N.E.2d 561.
Subject to the caveat expressed herein, I concur.