 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Mapes6/30/2005
DECISION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY
{ } Defendant-appellant, Adam W. Mapes, appeals his conviction in the Fulton County Court, Western District, on one count of driving with a prohibited breath alcohol concentration, a violation of R.C. 4511.19(A)(3) and first degree misdemeanor. Appellant proposes two assignments of error on appeal:
{ } "The trial court erred by not finding O.R.C. 4511.19, as amended by S.B. 163, unconstitutional."
{ } "The trial court erred in denying appellant's motion to suppress."
{ } On November 27, 2003, Trooper Shane Borton of the Ohio State Highway Patrol observed appellant traveling east on County Road N near Fayette, Ohio, in a red Ford pickup. After performing a computer check and discovering that appellant's license plate displayed an expired sticker, Borton executed a traffic stop. When Borton approached the vehicle and spoke with appellant and his two passengers, he noticed that appellant had bloodshot and glassy eyes, and he also detected an alcohol-like odor within the vehicle. After some brief questioning, appellant denied having consumed any alcohol. Borton ordered appellant out of the vehicle, spoke with appellant further, and again detected a strong odor of alcohol. At this point, appellant admitted that he had consumed one beer. Trooper Borton then administered three field sobriety tests: the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus ("HGN"), the One-Leg Stand, and the Walk-and-Turn. Based on his field sobriety test performance, appellant was arrested and charged with expired plates, driving under the influence , and driving with a prohibited breath alcohol concentration.
{ } On January 6, 2004, appellant filed a motion to dismiss on grounds that there was no probable cause for his arrest, as well as a motion to suppress evidence obtained from appellant's warrantless arrest and seizure. On April 5, 2004, appellant filed a motion challenging the constitutionality of Senate Bill 163. The trial court conducted a hearing on May 25, 2004, and denied all of appellant's motions. On August 25, 2004, the trial court dismissed the charges for expired plates and driving under the influence on the state's motion. The case proceeded to a jury trial on the sole charge of driving with a prohibited breath alcohol concentration, after which the jury found appellant guilty.
{ } Assignment of Error I
{ } Appellant first contends that R.C. 4511.19, as amended by S.B. 163 in 2003, is unconstitutional as a usurpation of the Ohio Supreme Court's authority to promulgate Rules of Evidence.
{ } Amended R.C. 4511.19(D) relevantly provides:
{ } "In any criminal prosecution * * * for a violation of division (A) or (B) of this section, * * * if a law enforcement officer has administered a field sobriety test to the operator of the vehicle involved in the violation and if it is shown by clear and convincing evidence that the officer administered the test in substantial compliance with the testing standards for any reliable, credible, and generally accepted field sobriety tests that were in effect at the time the tests were administered, including, but not limited to, any testing standards then in effect that were set by the national highway traffic safety administration, all of the following apply:
{ } "(i) The officer may testify concerning the results of the field sobriety test so administered.
{ } "(ii) The prosecution may introduce the results of the field sobriety test so administered as evidence in any proceedings in the criminal prosecution or juvenile court proceeding.
{ } "(iii) If testimony is presented or evidence is introduced under division (D)(4)(b)(i)
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Ohio DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|