 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Hooker9/29/1989
ABOOD, Judge.
This is an appeal from the March 1, 1989 judgment of the Sylvania Municipal Court granting defendant-appellee Kathleen Hooker's motion to suppress evidence and to dismiss the complaint.
Plaintiff-appellant, state of Ohio, sets forth the following assignments of error:
"I. The trial court committed prejudicial error in refusing to permit the State of Ohio to present evidence at the hearing on the motion to Suppress and Dismiss.
"II. The trial court committed prejudicial error in granting the Motion to Suppress and Dismiss based solely upon the opening statements of counsel.
"III. The trial court committed prejudicial error by granting the Motion to Suppress and Dismiss of the Defendant-Appellee and not stating its essential findings of fact on the record as required by Rule 12(E) of the Ohio Rules of Criminal Procedure.
"IV. The decision of the trial court was against the manifest weight of the evidence.
"V. Assuming, arguendo, that the trial court did not commit prejudicial error by not permitting the State of Ohio to present evidence at the hearing and by rendering a decision in this matter solely upon the contents of the opening statement of counsel, the opening statement of counsel for the State of Ohio was sufficient to establish that the arrest of the Defendant-Appellee was constitutionally valid as it was based upon probable cause.
"VI. The trial court committed prejudicial error by dismissing the Complaint against the Defendant-Appellee."
On February 12, 1988, appellee was arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol in violation of R.C. 4511.19(A)(1) and operating a motor vehicle while having a concentration of alcohol in excess of lawful limits in violation of R.C. 4511.19(A)(3). Prior to trial, appellee filed a motion to suppress evidence and to dismiss the complaint, contending that the officer lacked probable cause to arrest appellee. The case was set for hearing on July 25, 1988, at which time, after hearing opening statements of counsel, the court granted appellee's motion and dismissed the complaint.
In its first, second and sixth assignments of error, appellant contends that the trial court committed prejudicial error by refusing to permit the state osOhio to present evidence at the hearing on the motion to suppress and ultimately dismissing the complaint.
At the outset of the hearing, the prosecutor stated to the court as part of opening statement that the city's version of the events-leading to appellee's arrest was slightly-different from what defense counsel had represented. When the prosecutor attempted to state a brief summary as to what the city's evidence would show, the following dialogue took place:
"* * * THE COURT: This is all evidence that he got after he arrested her?
"MR. WOOD: No, Your Honor. Your Honor-
"THE COURT: You have got to have something before the Court that justifies an arrest, and your Court of Appeals will tell you that.
"MR. WOOD: I'd agree, Your Honor. In this particular case there was ample and probable cause for the Officer to make the arrest, and that's what the State's evidence offers--the Court--the City's evidence will show.
"THE COURT: Anything further Mr. Karcher?
At this point, defense counsel proceeded with his opening statement. Thereafter, the court proceeded as follows:
"* * * THE COURT: Anything further from the Prosecutor?
"MR. WOOD: Just if I might. Your Honor. Your Honor, this is the motion hearing.
"THE COURT: Yes.
Page 1 2 Ohio DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|