DUI Lawyers Directory. Search for a dui lawyer near you. Operating a vehicle while drinking could cause judicial actions.
 Zip Code Search for DUI Lawyers
Defending Alleged Drunk Driving Criminal Acts Read about successful dui defense cases from member dui lawyers Read about successful dui defense cases from member dui lawyers Membership at DUI Defenders Discuss issues related to dui/dwi/owi Contact Us about a DUI Lawyer

  to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.

City of Cleveland v. Criss

12/10/1998

e. The jury verdict states operating a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol, a drug of abuse, or alcohol and a drug of abuse in violation of M.C. 433.01A1. The verdict form lists the correct ordinance and except for a few non-essential words is identical to the wording in the ordinance. A verdict form containing the statutory description of the offense is reversible if it omits essential elements of the offense. State v. Lampkin (1996), 116 Ohio App.3d 771. Here, the essential elements of the offense were listed so the verdict form was properly submitted to the jury.


The second part of defendant's argument contends the trial court did not properly instruct the jury as to drug of abuse or what was a drug of abuse. Defendant's argument is misplaced. The ordinance reads under the influence of alcohol, a drug of abuse, or alcohol and a drug of abuse. There are three potential influences in this ordinance either alcohol, a drug of abuse or a combination of the two. In the present case, the evidence centered on defendant being influenced by alcohol. He admitted to consuming alcohol before he began driving, open containers of alcohol were found in his car, and he smelled of alcohol.


The trial court instructed the jury for operation of a motor vehicle, alcohol, and for under the influence . Because the case centered on defendant being influenced by alcohol any instruction the trial court would have given the jury on drug of abuse would be irrelevant and confusing. Thus, defendant's ninth assignment of error is overruled.


Defendant's tenth assignment of error states as follows:


DEFENDANT WAS DENIED DUE PROCESS OF LAW WHEN HE WAS SENTENCED FOR AN OFFENSE FOR WHICH HE HAD NOT BEEN FOUND GUILTY IN OPEN COURT.


Defendant argues the trial court announced it would decide the minor misdemeanor offenses of seatbelt violation and headlight violation in open court. However, defendant claims the trial court did not announce these verdicts as it is required pursuant to R.C. 2938.11(F) and therefore he was denied his constitutional right to be present at these proceedings.


A review of the trial transcript shows the trial court never stated it would announce the minor misdemeanor offenses in open court, as defendant alleges. The trial court announced each decision and sentence at the sentencing hearing. Moreover, R.C. 2938.11(F) which states a court shall announce any verdict in open court does not proscribe mandatory procedure by the court but, rather, it is just a directory guideline suggested by the legislature. See City of Xenia v. Manker (1984), 18 Ohio App.3d 9. In light of this reasoning, we overrule defendant's tenth assignment of error.


Defendant's eleventh assignment of error states as follows:


DEFENDANT WAS DENIED DUE PROCESS OF LAW WHEN HE WAS FOUND GUILTY OF A SEATBELT VIOLATION.


Defendant argues there is no evidence he operated his vehicle while not wearing a seatbelt. He claims neither of the police officers who testified at trial stated they saw him driving without his seatbelt and thus there is no evidence to support his conviction for this offense.


Neither the testimony of Det. Sotomayor nor that of Officer Simone indicates defendant was driving without his seatbelt. There is no other evidence or testimony which supports defendant's conviction for driving without a seatbelt. Thus, defendant's conviction for driving without seatbelt is reversed. Accordingly, defendant's eleventh assignment of error is sustained.


In his twelfth assignment of error defendant states as follows:


DEFENDANT WAS DENIED DUE PROCESS OF LAW WHEN THE COURT REFUSED TO DISMISS THE C

Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 

Ohio DUI Attorneys    DUI Lawyers


  to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.

DUI Driving Defined Highway Defined
Under Influence Defined DUI/3 Strikes DUI & Manslaughter
DUI & Murder DUI Punishment Sobriety Checkpoints
DMV's Role in DUI Revocation vs. Suspension Field Sobriety Testing
Speed Measurement Prior DUI Convictions Drawing Blood & Consent
Refusal to Test DUI Lawyers Testimonials by Member DUI Lawyers
DUI Articles Ignition Interlock Implied Consent
Summary DUI License Suspension In-home Arrest Vehicle Defined
 RSS Feeds  |  Articles  |  Jobs  |  Leads
SiteMap | DUI Blog | DUI Lawyers | DUI Attorneys | Member Agreement | Terms of Service
Attorneys Click Here | DUI Case Laws | FAQ | Directory of DUI Attorneys | Success Stories | Press Releases
Copyright © 2004. “DUI Defenders”. All rights reserved.