 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
City of Columbus v. Dials11/29/2005
{ } Defendant-appellant, Joseph N. Dials ("appellant"), appeals from the October 7, 2004 judgment of the Franklin County Municipal Court, entered upon a jury verdict finding him guilty of operating a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs, and a finding of guilty by the trial court of failing to signal before changing course.
{ } Appellant has set forth seven assignments of error for our review:
FIRST ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR:
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN OVERRULING THE APPELLANT'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS ANY AND ALL EVIDENCE OBTAINED BY THE CITY OF COLUMBUS FOLLOWING HIS ARREST WHICH OCCURRED WITHOUT PROBABLE CAUSE.
SECOND ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR:
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN PERMITTING TESTIMONY ABOUT THE EFFORTS TO ADMINISTER A BREATH TEST USING AN UNATHORIZED PORTABLE BREATH TESTING INSTRUMENT, AND THE APPELLANT'S REFUSAL TO SUBMIT TO SUCH TESTING, WHICH DENIED APPELLANT A FAIR TRIAL AND DUE PROCESS OF LAW.
THIRD ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR:
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN PERMITTING THE CITY OF COLUMBUS TO DEFINE THE TERM IMPAIRMENT USING THE TESTIMONY OF OFFICER JAMES H. GILBERT, AND AS A RESULT DENIED APPELLANT A FAIR TRIAL AND DUE PROCESS OF LAW.
FOURTH ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR:
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN PERMITTING THE CITY OF COLUMBUS TO INTRODUCE TESTIMONY CONCERNING THE POSSIBLE BLOOD ALCOHOL CONTENT OF THE DEFENDANT, AND AS A RESULT DENIED APELLANT A FAIR TRIAL AND DUE PROCESS OF LAW.
FIFTH ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR:
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN REFUSING TO SUSTAIN APPELLANT'S MOTION FOR ACQUITTAL AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE CITY'S CASE WITH REGARD TO OPERATING A MOTOR VEHICLE WHILE UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF A DRUG OF ABUSE.
SIXTH ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR:
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN REFUSING TO GIVE THE JURY INSTRUCTION OFFERED BY APPELLANT EXPLAINING THE LAW WITH REGARD TO THE SEARCH OF APPELLANT'S MOTOR VEHICLE.
SEVENTH ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR:
THE JURY'S VERDICT WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE, AND THE VERDICT WAS AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE.
{ } We will address appellant's various assignments of error together when necessary for purposes of clarity. We begin with appellant's first assignment of error. On August 20, 2004, the trial court conducted a hearing to consider appellant's motion to suppress evidence including statements made by appellant as well as the observations and opinions of the arresting officers about the sobriety of appellant. In his motion to suppress, appellant asserted that there was no lawful cause for police to initiate contact with him or probable cause to arrest him without a warrant. He further asserted that the statements made by him were unlawfully taken from him while in police custody but prior to receiving warnings in conformity to Miranda v. Arizona (1966), 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694.
{ } In considering the first assignment of error, we will only take into account the evidence introduced at the suppression hearing. The following facts were therein adduced.
{ } On April 10, 2004, at approximately 2:30 a.m., Officer Andrew Ward ("Ward"), of the Columbus Division of Police, observed appellant driving westbound on Livingston Avenue in Columbus, Ohio without illuminating his headlights. (Motion Hearing "MH" 4.) The area in which Ward observed the vehicle is known by the police to be a high crime area. (MH 48.) Ward shined the spotlight of the police cruiser at appellant in order to draw his attention to the fact that his headlights were not illuminated. (MH 4.) Ward testified that after shining the spotlight on appellant'
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Ohio DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|