Tag: dui trial

Burden Shifting At A Motion To Suppress Hearing

00DUI Court ProcessTags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

motion to suppressA motion to suppress is often the most critical phase of the OVI trial process.  Procedurally, the defense attorney files a motion challenging all of the government’s evidence.  Once this motion is filed the government has the burden of demonstrating the propriety of the arrest and that law enforcement substantially complied with the rules.

When a defendant challenges the admission of a breath-alcohol test, courts apply a burden shifting analysis. The state must show substantial compliance with ODH regulations, and if the state meets that burden, a rebuttable presumption arises that the test results are admissible. Burnside at ¶ 24; State v. Muchmore, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-120830, 2013-Ohio-5100, ¶ 16. Then, the burden shifts back to the defendant to show that he was prejudiced by anything less than strict compliance. Burnside at ¶ 24; Muchmore at ¶ 16.

What constitutes prejudice?  Your attorney should be able to tell you what “prejudice” has been defined as by the courts and what evidence he or she needs in your motion to suppress hearing.  Talk to your DUI attorney about what evidence of prejudice you can present to show that not strictly following the rules hurt your case.

Attorney Charles M. Rowland II dedicates his practice to defending the accused drunk driver in the Miami Valley and throughout Ohio.  He has the credentials and the experience to win your motion to suppress and has made himself Dayton’s choice for drunk driving defense. Contact Charles Rowland by phone at (937) 318-1384 or toll-free at 1-888-ROWLAND (888-769-5263). If you need assistance after hours, call the 24/7 DUI Hotline at (937) 776-2671.  You can have DaytonDUI at your fingertips by downloading the DaytonDUI Android App or have DaytonDUI sent directly to your mobile device by texting DaytonDUI (one word) to 50500.  Follow DaytonDUI on Facebook, @DaytonDUI on Twitter, YouTube, Tumblr, Pheed and Pintrest or get RSS of the Ohio DUI blog.  You can email CharlesRowland@DaytonDUI.com or visit his office at 2190 Gateway Dr., Fairborn, Ohio 45324.  “All I do is DUI defense.”

To talk about your motion to suppress contact me, or check these city-specific sites at the following links:

FairbornDaytonSpringfieldKetteringVandaliaXeniaMiamisburg, Huber HeightsOakwoodBeavercreekCenterville

OVI Trial Practice: Admission of the Alcohol Influence Report

00Illegal Police StopsTags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

alcohol influence report

The Alcohol Influence Report is a document prepared by the arresting officer noting each and every indicator for alcohol impairment that they took note of in their investigation.  Most of the forms require that the officer simply check the predetermined indicator.  Not surprisingly, all the officer’s observations fall neatly into these predetermined areas. The report is a document of the officers opinions and should not be considered routine ministerial reports of a non-adversarial nature.   Clearly, letting the jury have this document as evidence to review in the jury room would be prejudicial to an OVI defense.

Evidence Rule 803(8) excludes the alcohol influence report from evidence.  It states, in pertinent part:

RULES OF EVIDENCE

(8) Public records and reports. Records, reports, statements, or data compilations, in any form, of public offices or agencies, setting forth (a) the activities of the office or agency, or (b) matters observed pursuant to duty imposed by law as to which matters there was a duty to report, excluding, however, in criminal cases matters observed by police officers and other law enforcement personnel, unless offered by defendant, unless the sources of information or other circumstances indicate lack of trustworthiness.

Some courts have found that admissions of the forms is reversible error. State v. Joyce, 1998 WL 315913 (Ohio Ct. App. 1st Dist. Hamilton County 1998); State v. Weaver, 1985 WL 4343 (Ohio Ct. App. 10th Dist. Franklin County 1985); State v. Nightwine, 1982 WL 6042 (Ohio Ct. App. 12th Dist. Preble County 1982).  See also Ohio DUI Law, Weiler & Weiler  2013-2014 ed. at 439.

Attorney Charles M. Rowland II dedicates his practice to defending the accused drunk driver in the Miami Valley and throughout Ohio.  He has the credentials and the experience to win your case and has made himself Dayton’s choice for drunk driving defense. Contact Charles Rowland by phone at (937) 318-1384 or toll-free at 1-888-ROWLAND (888-769-5263). If you need assistance after hours, call the 24/7 DUI Hotline at (937) 776-2671.  You can have DaytonDUI at your fingertips by downloading the DaytonDUI Android App or have DaytonDUI sent directly to your mobile device by texting DaytonDUI (one word) to 50500.  Follow DaytonDUI on Facebook, @DaytonDUI on Twitter, YouTube, Tumblr, Pheed and Pintrest or get RSS of the Ohio DUI blog.  You can email CharlesRowland@DaytonDUI.com or visit his office at 2190 Gateway Dr., Fairborn, Ohio 45324.  “All I do is DUI defense.”

To learn more about the alcohol influence report check these city-specific sites at the following links:

FairbornDaytonSpringfieldKetteringVandaliaXeniaMiamisburg, Huber HeightsOakwoodBeavercreekCenterville, Alcohol Influence Report 

Standardized Field Sobriety Tests: You Can’t Say That!

00Field Tests (SFSTs)Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

headshot.beard“The notion that an officer may testify and estimate that a person, based on his or her Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus results, will test over the statutory limit a certain percentage of the time is alarming.”  This is not the opinion of an OVI defense attorney, but the opinion of the 4th District Court of Appeals in State v. Martin, 2005-Ohio-1732 (Ohio Ct. App. 4th Dist. Pickaway County 2005)(error found to be harmless in light of the other evidence adduced).  Therein, the court found it was error for the trial court to permit the arresting officer to testify that four or more clues  on an Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus test meant a 77% probability that the subject would have tested over the legal limit, although the officer did not state the results would show the defendant’s exact alcohol concentration.  Ohio’s First District Court of Appeals reached a similar conclusion in State v. Grizovic, 177 Ohio App. 3d 161, 2008-Ohio-3162, 894 N.E.2d 100 (Ohio Ct. App. 1st Dist. Hamilton County 2008), appeal not allowed at 120 Ohio St. 3d 1419, 2008-Ohio-6166, 897 N.E.2d 654 (2008).  In Grizovic, the Court held that trial testimony as to the statistical probability that a person would have tested over the legal limit based on the number of clues exhibited in any field sobriety test, without expert testimony linking the person’s blood alcohol content to impairment, is highly prejudicial and inadmissible.

 DUI attorney Charles M. Rowland II dedicates his practice to defending the accused drunk driver in Fairborn, Dayton, SpringfieldKetteringVandaliaXeniaMiamisburgHuber HeightsBeavercreekCentervilleSpringboro, Franklin and throughout Ohio.  He has the credentials and the experience to win your case and has made himself the Miami Valley’s choice for DUI defense.  Contact Charles Rowland by phone at 937-318-1DUI (937-318-1384), 937-879-9542, or toll-free at 1-888-ROWLAND (888-769-5263).  For after-hours help contact our 24/7 DUI HOTLINE at 937-776-2671.  For information about Dayton DUI sent directly to your mobile device, text DaytonDUI (one word) to 50500.  Follow DaytonDUI on Twitter @DaytonDUI or Get Twitterupdates via SMS by texting DaytonDUI to 40404. DaytonDUI is also available on Facebook,www.facebook.com/daytondui and on the DaytonDUI channel on YouTube.  You can also email Charles Rowland at: CharlesRowland@DaytonDUI.com or write to us at 2190 Gateway Dr., Fairborn, Ohio 45324.

 

Liespotting (from Ted Talks)

00Other Areas & InterestsTags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

On any given day we’re lied to from 10 to 200 times, and the clues to detect those lie can be subtle and counter-intuitive. Pamela Meyer, author of Liespotting, shows the manners and “hotspots” used by those trained to recognize deception — and she argues honesty is a value worth preserving.

Blood, Breath & Urine Testing In Ohio: The Three Hour Rule

00Blood & Urine Tests, Breath Testing, DUI Court ProcessTags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Self made photo, taken August 05.

Help your attorney defend your case by creating a credible time-line of events.

R.C. 4511.19(D) sets forth a three-hour time limitation for the collection of bodily substances for alcohol and/or drug testing.  This rule is a change from Ohio‘s previous law which gave the State only two hours in which to obtain a sample.  The time requirement has been adopted by the Ohio Supreme Court in Cincinnati v. Sand, 43 Ohio St.2d 79, 330 N.E.2d 908 (1975) and more definitively at Newark v. Lucas, 40 Ohio St.3d 100, 532 N.E.2d 130 (1988),  where the court held that tests in test cases (cases involving a violation of the prohibited alcohol level) the would only be admissible when drawn within the time limitations of the statutes.  What about in refusal cases?

After some confusion following the Lucas decision, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled in State v. Mayl, 106 Ohio St.3d 207, 833 N.E.2d 1216 (2005) that the state must show substantial compliance with R.C. 4511.19(D) and the Department of Health regulations before the test results are admissible.  A door for use outside of the three-hour limitation  exists, however.  In Columbus v. Taylor, 39 Ohio St. 3d 162, 529 N.E.2d 1382, the Court gave trial court’s broad discretion to allow in retrograde extrapolation evidence if properly supported by an expert.  In State v. Hassler, 115 Ohio St.3d 322, 875 N.E.2d 46 (2007), the Supreme Court back-tracked on its Mayl decision in an aggravated vehicular homicide case, allowing in expert-supported testimony of a blood test drawn more than seven (7) hours after an accident.  This may be a return to the Lucas rule or it may be a case that is limited only to aggravated vehicular homicide cases.

DUI trial counsel will need to establish a time-line of the incident.  A common scenario in which the three-hour limitation is raised is in situations where the police did not witness operation of the vehicle, like in an accident.  Another possible issue that trial counsel can raise is a challenge to the “beyond the three hour test” is an Evidence Rule 403 argument that the probative value of the evidence is outweighed by the unfair prejudice of its admission.  Sources for this article include Intoxication Test Evidence, Fitzgerald & Hume and Ohio Driving Under the Influence Law, 2009-2010 ed.,  Weiler & Weiler