 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Hayes12/14/2005
DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY
This cause was heard upon the record in the trial court. Each error assigned has been reviewed and the following disposition is made:
{ } Defendant, Paul A. Hayes, appeals the Medina Municipal Court's decision denying his motion to suppress the evidence of his breath test. We affirm the decision of the lower court.
{ } On October 10, 2003, Sergeant Aaron Lundquist stopped Defendant while Defendant had been driving. Sgt. Lundquist suspected Defendant of driving under the influence of alcohol and administered field sobriety tests. Defendant was thereafter placed under arrest and taken to the Spencer Village police department. At the police station, Defendant was given two breath tests. The result of the first test was invalid; the second test showed a blood alcohol content of .129, which is above the legal limit. Defendant was charged with violating R.C. 4511.19(A)(3).
{ } On October 30, 2003, Defendant filed a motion to suppress the results of the breath test, arguing that the officer administering the breath test did not wait the requisite twenty minutes between the first breath test which yielded an invalid result and the second test. A hearing was conducted on Defendant's motion on December 29, 2003. The lower court denied Defendant's motion to suppress on August 10, 2004, and Defendant entered a no-contest plea to operating a motor vehicle with a prohibited level of alcohol.
{ } Defendant now appeals, raising two assignments of error for our review. For ease of discussion, we will consider both assignments of error together.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR I
"The trial court erred in denying [Defendant's] motion to suppress the breath test evidence when the State did not show that it substantially complied with the twenty minute observation period."
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR II
"The trial court erred in denying [Defendant's] motion to suppress the breath test evidence when the state failed to initiate a new twenty minute observation period following an invalid breath test sample."
{ } In his two assignments of error, Defendant argues that the lower court erred in denying his motion to suppress the results of his breath test. Defendant maintains that the State did not show that it complied with the required twenty-minute observation period before giving him his first breath test, and thereafter failed to comply with the requirement that he be observed for another twenty minutes between his first breath test which yielded an invalid result and his second breath test. In light of the above, Defendant asks this court to reverse the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress the evidence of his breath test. We decline to do so.
{ } A trial court makes both factual and legal findings when ruling on a motion to suppress. State v. Jones, 9th Dist. No. 20810, 2002-Ohio-1109, at . An appellate court is to accept the trial court's findings of fact that are supported by competent, credible evidence, as the trial court is in the best position to evaluate questions of fact, credibility, and weight of the evidence. State v. Miller (May 23, 2001), 9th Dist. No. 20227, at 5. However, an appellate court reviews a trial court's legal conclusions on a motion to suppress evidence de novo. State v. Nazarian, 9th Dist. No. 04CA0017-M, 2004-Ohio-5448, at . A de novo review requires an independent review of the trial court's decision without any deference to the trial court's determination. State v. Amore, 9th Dist. No. 03CA008281, 2004-Ohio-958, at .
{ } At issue in the case at hand is whether the results of Defendant's breath test should have been suppre
Page 1 2 3 4 Ohio DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|