Case Title: State v. Sargeant

Citation: 1996-Ohio-332

Docket Number: 19952429

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 1996-12-11T00:00:00Z

Document:
THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLEE, V. SARGEANT, APPELLANT. 
1 
[Cite as State v. Sargeant (1996), ___ Ohio St.3d ___.] 
2 
Criminal law -- Operating motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol -- 
3 
Evidence -- Chemical test to determine intoxication not rendered 
4 
inadmissible by failure to advise accused of statutory right to another 
5 
test provided by R.C. 4511.19(D)(3) -- License suspended 
6 
administratively pursuant to R.C. 4511.191, subsequent to arrest for 
7 
violation of R.C. 4511.19 -- Subseqent prosecution of criminal drunk 
8 
driving not precluded by Double Jeopardy Clauses of Ohio and 
9 
United States Constitutions. 
10 
 
(No. 95-2429 -- Submitted November 12, 1996 -- Decided December 
11 
11, 1996.) 
12 
 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Butler County, No. CA95-03-
13 
049. 
14 
 
2
__________ 
1 
 
Bruce E. Fassler, Middletown City Prosecutor, for appellee. 
2 
 
Jackie Leigh Butler, for appellant. 
3 
__________ 
4 
 
The following three propositions of law are raised by appellant in this 
5 
appeal: 
6 
 
“Proposition of Law No. I:  The results of a breath alcohol test should 
7 
be suppressed when one is not advised, pursuant to the requirements of 
8 
R.C. 4511.19(D), of the right to an independent breath, blood or urine test. 
9 
 
“Proposition of Law II:  Prosecution for a violation of R.C. 
10 
4511.19(A)(3) is barred by the Double Jeopardy Clause of Section 10, 
11 
Article I of the Ohio Constitution and the Fifth Amendment to the 
12 
Constitution of the United States. 
13 
 
“Proposition of Law No. III:  It is an abuse of discretion not to overrule 
14 
a motion to suppress results of a breath alcohol test when the state failed 
15 
to meet the burden set forth in Sections 3701-53 and 3701-53(D) [sic] of 
16 
the Ohio Administrative Code.” 
17 
 
3
 
The judgment of the court of appeals on the first proposition of law is 
1 
affirmed on the authority of Hilliard v. Elfrink (1996), 77 Ohio St.3d ___, 
2 
___ N.E.2d ___, decided today. 
3 
 
The judgment of the court of appeals on the second proposition of 
4 
law is affirmed on the authority of State v. Gustafson (1996), 76 Ohio St.3d 
5 
425, 668 N.E.2d 435. 
6 
 
The third proposition of law is dismissed as having been 
7 
improvidently allowed. 
8 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and 
9 
STRATTON, JJ., concur. 
10 
 
11