 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Flynt3/21/2003
JUDGMENT: Affirmed.
. This appeal emanates from a jury verdict in the Portage County Court of Common Pleas finding appellant, Wilhelm D. Flynt, guilty of driving under the influence of alcohol.
. On May 24, 2001, this case was instituted with a transcript from a preliminary hearing in the Kent Municipal Court. On June 21, 2001, the grand jury returned a true bill to one count of driving under the influence of alcohol, a felony of the third degree, in violation of R.C. 4511.19(A)(1), 4511.99(A)(4)(a)(ii), and 2929.14(D)(4).
. At his arraignment, on July 2, 2002, appellant entered a plea of not guilty to the charge, and the matter was set for a jury trial commencing on August 7, 2001. On August 6, 2001, appellant filed a motion to suppress on the grounds that the police did not have lawful cause to detain him, there was no probable cause for the arrest, and appellant was not properly advised of his Miranda rights. On that same date, appellant filed a motion to suppress any comment referencing his indigent status. A hearing on the motions was scheduled immediately preceding trial on August 7, 2001.
. On August 7, 2001, appellant filed a "Motion in Limine to Suppress Evidence," seeking to exclude: (1) any reference to appellant's prior history other than the predicate basis for the current charge and (2) evidence regarding his refusal to perform field sobriety tests. That same day, appellant also moved to suppress any audio portions of the booking room videotape referencing prior charges of driving under the influence .
. On August 7, 2001, a hearing was held on appellant's motions to suppress. During the hearing, the court ruled on appellant's motions to suppress and granted appellant's motion to redact portions of the booking tape, prohibited the admission of statements appellant made after he was placed under arrest, and prohibited the officer from making any reference to appellant's prior convictions for driving under the influence other than his prior felony conviction. The court determined that evidence relating to appellant driving under suspension was admissible and found that, based on the officer's observations, the officer had probable cause to stop appellant. Prior to trial, the court overruled appellant's "Motion in Limine to Suppress Evidence."
. A jury trial commenced on August 8, 2001. The evidence presented at trial revealed that, on the evening of May 12, 2001, appellant was traveling northbound on Mogadore Road, in Kent, Ohio. Jerry Schlosser ("Officer Schlosser") of the Kent City Police Department was driving southbound on Mogadore Road and observed appellant's vehicle travel left of center. Officer Schlosser turned around and followed appellant. While pursuing appellant, Officer Schlosser "pace clocked" appellant driving forty-eight miles per hour in a thirty-five mile per hour zone and observed appellant's vehicle weave and drive left of center for a second time. After the vehicle crossed left of center, Officer Schlosser initiated a traffic stop.
. Officer Schlosser testified that when he asked appellant for his driver's license, appellant stated that it was under suspension. During this conversation with appellant, the officer noticed a strong odor of alcohol emanating from appellant. He also observed that appellant's eyes were bloodshot and glossy, and his speech was slurred. Based on these observations, Officer Schlosser asked appellant to exit the vehicle. Officer Schlosser testified that when appellant attempted to exit the vehicle, he stumbled, staggered, and almost fell. After regaining his balance, appellant denied having consumed any alcoholic beverages, placed his hands behind his
Page 1 2 3 4 Ohio DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|