Source: https://www.morelaw.com/verdicts/case.asp?n=CA2018-06-045%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%0ACA2018-06-046%20&s=OH&d=128275
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 18:11:21+00:00

Document:
influence of alcohol, a drug of abuse, or a combination of them.
admitted to consuming three beers "earlier but not recently."
and the one-leg-stand test. Wayman exhibited multiple clues on each of the three tests.
were also performed. These two additional tests also indicated Wayman was impaired.
1. As part of this indictment, Wayman was also charged with operating a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol or drugs in violation of R.C. 4511.19(A)(2)(a). A subsequent indictment was thereafter returned charging Wayman with possession of heroin and aggravated possession of drugs. Due to the arguments raised herein, and for purposes of this appeal, this court will limit its analysis to the single count charging Wayman with operating a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol or drugs in violation of R.C. 4511.19(A)(1)(a).
term is defined by R.C. 4511.01(HHH).
discovered by Officer Wolf], where he stopped and fell asleep or became unconscious."
The trial court based its decision on four findings.
First, [the witnesses who first noticed the vehicle] was so alarmed in observing the defendant's driving and idling on the road that he believed the defendant to be impaired and in need of emergency assistance. [The witness] believed this even while the defendant was still sitting upright in his car. His description of the defendant's driving and parking seems consistent with the description of someone who has already used drugs. The defendant idled in his car in the middle of the road in front of [the witness'] home, and then "ran up" the other side of the road and stopped in the opposite direction of traffic. The defendant chose to rest his car in an area where parking was prohibited and with the car still halfway on the road.
Second, given the time constraints the court does not believe that the defendant had time to use the drugs during the 30 seconds or less that [the witness] was gone to get his cell phone in his home. The defendant testified that he used cellophane to crush the heroin/fentanyl and then snorted it.2 Because he was found with the cellophane in his pocket and the remaining heroin/fentanyl in his console inside of a prescription pill bottle, he must have also needed time, after crushing and snorting the drugs, to put these items away before [the witness] returned and found him lying across the front seat. The court does not believe that the defendant could have started and concluded this process all in 30 seconds or less.
2. This court was confused as to how Wayman could have used "cellophane" to crush the heroin/fentanyl before snorting it. Our confusion, however, is alleviated by Wayman's testimony indicating that he "crush[ed] 'em up in the cellophane, and snort[ed] 'em."
and around his driveway. The defendant being less than discrete about his presence. Stated differently, the court does not believe that the defendant chose a conspicuous spot to use illegal drugs that was directly in front of a third party witness.
Moreover, the court does not believe the defendant's testimony that he placed his car in park and turned it off before using the heroin. Instead, the court believes [the witness'] testimony that the car was left running and Officer Wolf's testimony that the car was in gear. The court finds it doubtful that the defendant would have gone through the process of using drugs without at least placing his car in park first. In sum, the court believes that the defendant used the heroin/fentanyl, drove his car on [the street where it later came to a stop], realized he was having a medical issue due to the unknown fentanyl, and just barely pulled over to the side of the road in time to lose consciousness or fall asleep.
suspended for a period of 15 years.
while under the influence was against the manifest weight of the evidence. We disagree.
as to whether the state has met its burden of production at trial." State v. Boles, 12th Dist.
assigned to the evidence." State v. Kirkland, 140 Ohio St.3d 73, 2014-Ohio-1966, ¶ 132.
are both quantitatively and qualitatively different.'" State v. Couch, 12th Dist. Butler No.
sufficiency. State v. Jones, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2012-03-049, 2013-Ohio-150, ¶ 19.
sufficiency." State v. Hart, 12th Dist. Brown No. CA2011-03-008, 2012-Ohio-1896, ¶ 43.
v. Anderson, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-160920, 2017-Ohio-8641, ¶ 33.
R.C. 4511.01(HHH): Definition of "Operate"
was "operating" or had "operated" a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol or drugs.
No. 07CA78, 2008-Ohio-4136, ¶ 24, citing State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (1991).
movement" of a vehicle and not merely "potential movement." State v. Burnett, 2d Dist.
infer that the vehicle was moved to that location." Id. at ¶ 25.
to support the trial court's decision.
trier of fact to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that an impaired offender had "operated"
7. State v. Adams, 3d Dist. Crawford No. 3-06-24, 2007-Ohio4932, ¶ 19-22 (impaired offender had "operated" a vehicle found stopped at a stop sign in the middle of the street blocking traffic with the vehicle still running where the offender was "slooped" over the steering wheel and emanating a strong odor of an alcoholic beverage on his person).
only after he pulled the vehicle off to the side of the road and parked was not credible.
vehicle ultimately came to a stop], realized he was having a medical issue due to the unknown fentanyl, and just barely pulled over to the side of the road in time to lose consciousness or fall asleep.
The record fully supports the trial court's findings.
Q: Okay. You said you saw Mr. Wayman stopped in the middle of the roadway, and he was stopped in the middle of the roadway for a minute or two, correct?
Q: Okay. Could you see what he was doing at that time?
A: No. He was just sit – sitting in the car?
Q: Okay. And he's still sitting up at this time?
Q: Okay. And so you didn't see him do anything, you just saw him sitting in the car for a minute or two?
Q: And that caused you concern, correct?
A: I didn't [be]come concerned until he rolled past me and pulled up and kind of veered off into that vacant lot.
impaired when he was observed "operating" the vehicle.
trial court's decision. Wayman's claim otherwise lacks merit.
agree that this witness never explicitly testified that he believed Wayman was impaired.
come to a stop facing against traffic parked halfway on the street and halfway on the grass.
while under the influence of alcohol or drugs. Wayman's claim otherwise again lacks merit.

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

v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.