Source: https://www.columbusduifirm.com/DUI-Defense/Ohio-DUI-Ohio-OVI-Appellate.aspx
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 00:30:58+00:00

Document:
10-29-07: Ohio DUI Law Criminalizing “Refusal” Unconstitutional -- Ohio DUI statute that criminalizes a “refusal” is unconstitutional. (State v. Hoover, Union County Court of Appeals).
08-16-07: Ohio Possession of Cocaine (F5) -- the defendant was sentenced to 12 months in prison for possessing less than 5 grams of cocaine after a jury returned a guilty verdict. The defendant appealed arguing that "mere possession of a crack pipe does not demonstrate he knew drugs were present". The residue in the pipe was analyzed by using "Scott's Test" (rinsing the socket with methylene chloride and testing for drugs) and gas chromatograph mass spectrometer ("GC Mass Spec"). Both tests concluded the presence of cocaine residue. The quantity of drug is not a factor in determining guilt or innocence. The amount of cocaine was so small the only way to remove it was by rinsing still supported a conviction for possession of cocaine under Ohio's Drug Possession statute. (State v. Young, Cuyahoga County Court of Appeals).
08-06-07: Possesion of Cocaine in Ohio -- "knowingly posses" -- a person acts "knowingly", regardless of his purpose, when he is aware that his conduct will probably cause a certain result. "Knowingly" can be determined from all the surrounding facts and circumstances. It is an issue for the judge or jury to decide. (State v. Frazier, Stark County Court of Appeals).
07-08-07: Ohio Prosecutor Misconduct Leads to Reversal of Conviction -- when the defendant testified at trial and stated, "I am going to take the Fifth", it was reversible error for the prosecutor to then say, "Once again, you don't want the jury to hear the truth. Is that what you are saying?" (State v. Beebe, Hocking County Ohio Court of Appeals).
06-08-07: FELONY OHIO DUI CONVICTION REVERSED -- the Fulton County Court of Appeals (6th Appellate District) reversed a felony conviction after the State failed to sufficiently prove the prior DUI convictions. When a prior offense increases the degree of the offense, the prosecution must establish the prior conviction beyond a reasonable doubt. R.C. 2945.75(B) permits the state to meet this burden by admitting into evidence a "certified copy of the entry of judgment in such prior conviction" along with evidence that the defendant in the prior case(s) is the same individual. If the state seeks to introduce a judgment of conviction, the judgment itself must not be defective. Judgments must conform to Crim.R. 32(C) which requires (a) the plea (b) the verdict or finding (c) the sentence (d) it must be signed by the judge; and (e) the clerk of courts must journalize it. At issue in this case is the fact that the prior judgment of conviction actually lacks a finding of guilt. Conviction reversed. (State v. Hill and Whitten. The defendants were represented by Amber L. VanGunten).
06-05-07: RECKLESS HOMICIDE CONVICTION REVERSED - the Franklin County (Ohio) Court of Appeals, 10th Appellate District, overturned a reckless homicide conviction based upon insufficient evidence to convict. A person acts recklessly when he "perversely disregards a known risk that his conduct is likely to cause a certain result". The knowledge of a specific risk (as opposed to a general risk inherent in the activity) must be proven by the prosecution. The state failed to present evidence that the defendant knew of the specific risk associated with an activity. Essentially, knowledge of a general risk may be grounds for a negligence crime whereas knowledge of a specific risk is the basis for a reckless crime. (State v. Peck).
06-04-07: Scientific Testimony in Urine Test Ohio DUI Case Disregarded by Court-- the Knox County (Ohio) Court of Appeals, 5th District, affirmed the lower court's decision to disregard the unrebutted scientific testimony of the defendant's expert. Specifically, the defendant gave a urine sample after being arrested for Ohio DUI / Ohio OVI. His results were over Ohio's urine legal limit. His attorney, Jim Gilies, hired Dr. Alfred Staubus, a pre-eminent toxicologist, to testify as to the inherent unreliability of urine sampling for alcohol levels. The trial judge heard all of the testimony at bench trial with very little rebuttal from the prosecutor. The trial judge concluded that since Ohio's Alcohol Testing Regulations are silent on the issues presented by Dr. Staubus (i.e. a bladder void before an evidentiary sample) that there is no Ohio requirement for a bladder void. The trial judge then found the defendant guity of having an illegal concentration of alcohol in his urine ("per se" violation) and sentenced him accordingly. The defendant appealed. The 5th District (Ohio) Court of Appeals affirmed in a very short decision. (State v. Watson, Knox County Court of Appeals, 5th District).
04-18-07: Ohio Supreme Court Tightens Burden of Proof in Multiple Offender DUI Cases -- Prior Uncounselled Convictions -- when a defendant charged with Ohio DUI / Ohio OVI and has prior DUI convictions, a typical defense theory is to challenge the constitutionality of those priors. The most common challenge to prior DUI convictions in Ohio is "prior uncounselled" challenges. When an Ohio DUI defendant makes a prima facie showing (i.e. signs and files an Affidavit stating as much) that one or more of his or her prior DUI convictions was without legal counsel and resulted in incarceration (an important distinction), the burden shifts to the State to prove that the defendant properly waived the right to counsel in the earlier cases before any prior conviction can be used to enhance the penalties for the new Ohio DUI offense. Specifically, waivers of legal counsel in Ohio criminal / Ohio DUI cases must be made on the record and in open court. If the prior Ohio DUI was a third offense or higher (carrying more than 6 months incarceration), the Ohio Supreme Court ruled that the waiver of counsel must be made in writing and filed with the court. It appears as though Ohio prosecutors must need to introduce a transcript of the prior sentencing hearings in order to show compliance with Ohio Criminal Rules 11 (trial judge must address the defendant personally and inform him or her of the effects of a plea and then make a determination that the defendant is entering the plea voluntarily. A trial judge must also re-advise the defendant of his or her right to legal counsel and then be satisfied of the waiver of that right). Waiver of legal counsel must meet Ohio Criminal Rule 44(C) (in open court, and recorded. It must be in writing if the defendant is facing more than 6 months incarceration). (State v. Brooke, 113 Ohio St.3d 199, on appeal from the Lake County Court of Appeals).
03-26-07: Anonymous Tip Leading to Ohio DUI Stop Upheld -- the state must demonstrate at a pre-trial hearing that the facts precipitating the tip justified the traffic stop when law enforcement does not observe any evidence of a traffic violation or criminal offense. An identified citizen tipster is deemed the most reliable of tips to 800-GRAB-DUI. When another driver calls into 800-GRAB-DUI and provides their name, phone number and is present during the traffic stop, this possesses sufficient reliability for an officer to make a stop with no other evidence. (State v. Mangus, on appeal from a DUI in Delaware County Ohio).
03-14-07: State Must Prove at Hearing What Radio is Used to Test for RFI -- when challenged by the defense in a pre-trial motion to suppress, the State must prove that the radio used in the RFI check is one "normally used" by that law enforcement agency. ( State v. Graziano, Licking County Ohio DUI appeal. Mr. Graziano was represented by Columbus lawyer Eric Yavitch).
10-06-06: Ohio Breath testing records are not barred by Crawford - defendant was charged with DUI in Ohio. Ohio DUI laws permit documents offered into evidence regarding certification of the Ohio breath testing machine were not testimonial under Crawford v. Washington. (State v. Shisler, 1st Dist.) Defendant was represented by Ohio DUI lawyer Rob Lyons.
The information on this Columbus OVI Attorney website is for general information purposes only. Nothing on this or associated pages, documents, comments, answers, emails, or other communications should be taken as legal advice for any individual case or situation. This information on this website is not intended to create, and receipt or viewing of this information does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.