 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Clites4/2/1991
NADER, Judge.
This appeal is from the trial court's decision, finding appellant, William Clites, guilty of driving under suspension in violation of R.C. 4507.02, and was submitted to this court on the briefs of counsel.
On July 2, 1989, Officer Gyoker, a Brimfield Township patrolman, observed appellant traveling north on State Route 43 at approximately 1:56 a.m. The officer testified that he observed the appellant's automobile "straddling both northbound lanes" or otherwise "traveling down the middle of the road." As appellant proceeded onto the entrance ramp of Interstate 76, the wheels of the automobile went beyond the right edge line by several feet. As Officer Gyoker continued to follow appellant, he observed the automobile "jerk" beyond the edge line and weave within its own lane.
Appellant was then pulled over and Officer Gyoker requested the production of his driver's license. Appellant did not produce a driver's license, and the officer testified that appellant's eyes were bloodshot, his speech slurred, and that appellant had a moderate odor of alcohol about his person. The arresting officer further stated that appellant admitted drinking four or five beers and performed poorly on several field sobriety tests. Based on these observations, the officer testified that he concluded that appellant was not capable of continuing driving, and placed him under arrest for driving under the influence in violation of R.C. 4511.19A(1).
As appellant was without his driver's license, the officer ran a check of his driving status by calling in pertinent information, such as the arrestee's date of birth and social security number, to the radio dispatcher. Based on the information he received, the officer then arrested appellant for driving under suspension in violation of R.C. 4507.02, and requested the dispatcher to obtain certified copies of appellant's driving record.
At trial, over appellant's objections, the copies of appellant's driving-record were entered into evidence. Appellant also attacked the officer's testimony based on the inconsistencies with the testimony, apparently given by the officer, at a suppression hearing on January 30, 1990, although the record does not include an entry on the motion to suppress.
At the close of the presentation of the state's evidence, appellant moved for a directed verdict, and the court, construing the evidence most favorably tsthe state, denied the motion. After a brief recess, appellant rested without putting forth any evidence, and the court found appellant not guilty as to the charge of drunk driving , and guilty as to the charge of driving under suspension. It is from this order that appellant appeals, raising the following assignment of error:
"The trial court erred in accepting improperly and inadmissible evidence being introduced into the record." (sic.)
At trial, appellant objected to the admission of appellee's Exhibit A, purported records of the Bureau of Motor Vehicles. Appellant asserted several grounds for his objections. He found it objectionable that the documents lacked a proper seal, and that the signature was not the signature of the registrar, Michael J. McCullion. Appellant also argued that it was improper to attach several papers to the certificate attesting to the attachments' correctness.
The signature of the attesting officer, Florence Shepherd, was not improper, as the rule allows a deputy of the custodian of the records to certify the correctness of the copies. Evid.R. 902(4), concerning self-authentication of documents, provides that no extrinsic evidence of authenticity is required for copies of official r
Page 1 2 3 4 Ohio DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|