 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Massie2/9/2004
DECISION
Defendant-appellant, Stephen Massie, appeals his conviction in the Mason Municipal Court for driving under the influence (DUI).
A state highway patrol officer observed appellant's vehicle drifting back and forth across highway lanes. After stopping appellant, the officer noticed an odor of alcohol and that appellant's speech was slightly slurred. He also noticed appellant's face was red and that his eyes were bloodshot. At the officer's request, appellant got out of his vehicle and performed field sobriety tests. Appellant was arrested and charged with driving under the influence .
Appellant filed a motion to suppress evidence that included a request to suppress the field sobriety tests on both on the issue of probable cause and as evidence at trial. The trial court held a hearing on the motion to suppress. At the hearing, the parties stipulated that, for purposes of determining probable cause, the horizontal gaze nystagmus (HGN) test was not performed in strict compliance with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) standards. The state presented the testimony of the arresting officer, who testified that he performed the one-leg-stand test and the walk-and-turn test according to NHTSA standards. Before beginning his cross-examination of the officer, defense counsel asked to play a videotape of the stop. The trial court allowed the videotape to be shown and then stated: "We don't even need to go forward. You guys have seen the tape. I just heard what the officer said. I'm not even gonna consider any of the other factors." The trial court then made a determination that there was probable cause to arrest appellant without even considering the evidence of the field sobriety tests. The trial court stated that its decision did not address whether the evidence would be admissible at trial and told defense counsel that it could file a motion in limine at a later time on that issue.
Defense counsel then filed a motion in limine challenging the admissibility of the field sobriety tests at trial on the basis that they were not performed in strict compliance with NHTSA standards. At some point on the day of trial, the court held a hearing on the motion in limine. The court found that the issue of whether the tests were performed in strict compliance was an issue for the jury to decide and denied appellant's request to find them inadmissible at trial. The trial court further denied appellant's request to question the officer on the record outside of the jury regarding his administration of the tests.
At trial, the officer testified regarding each of the three field sobriety tests. His testimony included statements regarding what comprised each test, what the "clues" of intoxication for each test were, and appellant's results on the tests.
A jury convicted appellant of driving under the influence and the trial court sentenced him accordingly. Appellant now appeals his conviction and raises the following single assignment of error:
"THE TRIAL COURT ERRED TO THE PREJUDICE OF DEFENDANT-APPELLANT WHEN IT PERMITTED TRIAL TESTIMONY REGARDING THE HORIZONTAL GAZE NYSTAGMUS TEST AND THE TWO FIELD SOBRIETY TESTS."
In State v. Homan, 89 Ohio St.3d 421, 2000-Ohio-212, the Ohio Supreme Court determined that in order for the results of field sobriety tests to be admissible on the issue of probable cause to arrest, the testing must have been conducted in strict compliance with NHTSA standards. In this case, the trial court found it unnecessary to determine if the tests were performed in strict compliance because it found probable cause existed to arrest appellant without consideration of the
Page 1 2 Ohio DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|