 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Robertson2/5/2004
(REGULAR CALENDAR)
DECISION
.Defendant-appellant, Linda Robertson, appeals from a judgment of the Franklin County Municipal Court finding her guilty of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol in violation of R.C. 4511.19.
.On November 14, 2002, at approximately 12:20 a.m., Trooper Craig Cvetan of the Ohio Highway Patrol stopped appellant on Bethel Road for speeding. Upon approaching the driver's side window of appellant's automobile, Trooper Cvetan noticed that appellant's eyes were red and glassy and that a smell of alcohol emanated from the car's interior. After requesting appellant's driver's license and registration, Trooper Cvetan asked appellant how much she had had to drink that evening. Appellant responded that she had consumed one glass of wine. Trooper Cvetan then returned to his cruiser to check appellant's license and registration. After returning to appellant's car, Trooper Cvetan issued appellant a citation for speeding and performed a cursory horizontal gaze nystagmus ("HGN") test on appellant while she was still in her car. Trooper Cvetan then had appellant exit her vehicle and perform three field sobriety tests:
the one-leg-stand test, the walk-and-turn test, and a second HGN test. After completion of the field sobriety tests, Trooper Cvetan placed appellant under arrest and transported her to the police headquarters where she submitted to a breath test. The results of appellant's breath test showed appellant had a blood alcohol level in excess of the legal limit. Appellant was charged with operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol in violation of R.C. 4511.19(A)(1) and (A)(3).
.Appellant moved to suppress all evidence of the field sobriety tests and to dismiss the charge against her arguing that in the absence of the field sobriety tests Trooper Cvetan lacked probable cause to arrest appellant. At the suppression hearing, Trooper Cvetan testified and a videotape with audio of the traffic stop that led to appellant's arrest was played and admitted into evidence. At the close of the hearing, the trial court granted appellant's motion to suppress the initial HGN test performed by Trooper Cvetan but overruled the motion to suppress with respect to the one-leg-stand test, the walk-and-turn test, and the second HGN test. Based on the results of these three tests, the trial court concluded that Trooper Cvetan possessed probable cause to arrest appellant. Thereafter, appellant entered a no contest plea and the trial court found her guilty of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol. Appellant appeals from the judgment of the trial court assigning the following error:
[I.] APPELLANT'S CONVICTION MUST BE REVERSED BECAUSE THE TRIAL COURT ERRED TO THE PREJUDICE OF THE APPELLANT WHEN IT OVERRULED HER MOTION TO DISMISS/SUPPRESS WHEN IT CONCLUDED THAT THE ARRESTING OFFICER HAD PROBABLE CAUSE TO ARREST APPELLANT FOR OPERATING A MOTOR VEHICLE UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF ALCOHOL/DRUGS.
.There are three methods of challenging a trial court's ruling on a motion to suppress on appeal. First, an appellant may challenge the trial court's findings of fact. In reviewing a challenge of this nature, an appellate court must determine whether the trial court's findings of fact are against the manifest weight of the evidence. See State v. Fanning (1982), 1 Ohio St.3d 19; and State v. Klein (1991), 73 Ohio App.3d 486. Second, an appellant may argue that the trial court failed to apply the appropriate test or correct law to the findings of fact. In that case, an appellate court can reverse the trial court for committing an error of law. See State v. Williams (1993), 86 Ohio
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Ohio DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|