State v. Anderson9/30/2005
{ } Defendant-appellant, Jacob Anderson ("appellant"), appeals from an entry overruling his motion to suppress the results of his blood alcohol concentration ("BAC") test.
{ } On April 9, 2004, appellant was stopped by a Grandview Heights Police Officer and was cited with two counts of OVI. Prior to being cited, appellant was offered a breath test and provided a sample, which registered 0.183 grams of alcohol per 210 liters of breath. The breath test was performed at the Grandview Heights Police Department by Officer Adkins.
{ } On August 23, 2004, appellant filed a motion to suppress the results of the BAC test arguing that the senior operator permits issued to Officer Adkins and Officer Beeba were not valid on the date the BAC test was administered. Following a hearing on the matter, by entry filed August 26, 2004, the trial court denied appellant's motion to suppress. This appeal followed.
{ } Appellant asserts the following assignment of error:
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN OVERRULING APPELLANT'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS AS THE PERMITS ISSUED TO OFFICER'S (sic) ADKINS AND BEEBA WERE NOT VALID ON THE DATE THE TEST WAS ADMINISTERED.
{ } As we held in State v. Robertson, Franklin App. No. 03AP-277, 2004-Ohio-556, at :
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, 1 Ohio B. 57, 437 N.E.2d 583; and State v. Klein (1991), 73 Ohio App.3d 486, 597 N.E.2d 1141. 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 App.3d 37, 619 N.E.2d 1141. Finally, an appellant may argue the trial court has incorrectly decided the ultimate or final issue raised in a motion to suppress. When reviewing this type of claim, an appellate court must independently determine, without deference to the trial court's conclusion, whether the facts meet the appropriate legal standard in any given case. State v. Curry (1994), 95 Ohio App. 3d 93, 641 N.E.2d 1172; and State v. Claytor (1993), 85 Ohio App.3d 623, 620 N.E.2d 906.
{ } In the instant appeal, appellant's challenge of the trial court's ruling is based on the second and third methods. "At a suppression hearing, the evaluation of evidence and the credibility of witnesses are issues for the trier of fact." State v. Mills (1992), 62 Ohio St.3d 357, 366, quoting State v. Fanning (1982), 1 Ohio St.3d 19, 20. As such, the reviewing court must accept the trial court's findings of fact if the same are supported by competent, credible evidence. State v. Pena, Franklin App. No. 03AP-174, 2004-Ohio-350, at . But we must "independently determine as a matter of law, without deference to the trial court's conclusions, whether the findings of fact satisfy the appropriate legal standard." Ibid., quoting State v. Goins (Oct. 22, 1998), Franklin App. No. 98AP-266, 1998-Ohio-App. LEXIS 4916.
{ } Pursuant to R.C. 3701.143, the Director of the Ohio Department of Health is charged with the responsibility for determining who is qualified to administer a test to determine the blood alcohol level of an individual, the results of which are then admissible in a prosecution under R.C. 4511.19 or equivalent municipal statutes. In accordance with R.C. 3701.143, the Director of Health p
Page 1 2 3 4 Ohio DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|