Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Finney v. State

Indiana Court of Appeals

Decided July 28, 1997No. 46A03-9607-CR-228Published

1ConcurrenceSullivan, Judge

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…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Toms v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · 1952
  2. State v. GallantSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1967
  3. Munn v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1975
  4. State v. GeislerConnecticut Appellate Court · 1990
  5. Chilcutt v. StateIndiana Court of Appeals · 1989

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API