# Schmidt v. State

> Indiana Court of Appeals · October 28, 2004 · 816 N.E.2d 925

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9707516

## Case

- **Full name:** Christopher SCHMIDT, Appellant-Defendant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff
- **Court:** Indiana Court of Appeals
- **Decided:** October 28, 2004
- **Citations:** 816 N.E.2d 925; 2004 Ind. App. LEXIS 2113; 2004 WL 2403922
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Barnes
- **Judges:** Najam, Barnes, Sullivan
- **Cited by:** 50 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9707516

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- finding that Pirtle does not apply to chemical breath tests
- holding that Pirtle is not applicable to chemical breath tests

## Opinion text

BARNES, Judge,
concurring.
I coneur in the majority opinion in full, and write to acknowledge that I voted to concur in the Luckhart decision and its approval of an instruction similar to the one disapproved of in this case. At the time Luckhart was issued, our supreme court had not yet decided Ludy. Whatever the sequence, I am convinced that Dill and Ludy compel the result reached here and that my vote in Luekhart would not be the *947 same today, given the logic of the majority opinion and the combined effect of the Ludy and Dill decisions.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9707516. Public record. Not legal advice.