Cincinnati v. Ilg (Slip Opinion)
21 N.E.3d 278
Ohio2014Background
- Ilg was arrested for OVI after a breath test showing 0.143 BAC (0.08 limit).
- Ilg sought COBRA data and related records from the Intoxilyzer 8000 that tested him.
- City and ODH did not produce COBRA data or other requested records.
- Trial court sanctioned by excluding Ilg’s breath-test results for noncompliance with discovery subpoenas.
- Appellate Court affirmed the exclusion sanction; Supreme Court granted discretionary appeal.
- Court held that the director approves devices like Intoxilyzer 8000 for used testing, but defendants may challenge accuracy of specific test results with discovery of machine-specific data.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| May an accused challenge the accuracy of a specific breath test result? | Ilg seeks COBRA data to challenge accuracy of his test. | Vega bars general attacks on reliability of approved machines. | Yes; can challenge specific test results. |
| Is COBRA data discoverable to support such a challenge? | COBRA data relevant to test accuracy; necessary for trial preparation. | COBRA data not discoverable under Crim.R. 16; not directly linked to guilt. | COBRA data related to the specific machine is discoverable. |
| Were sanctions warranted for failure to produce COBRA data? | Ilg needed data; city/ODH did not comply. | Production impossible or unduly burdensome; not material to guilt. | Yes; exclusion of the breath-test results as a sanction was warranted. |
| Does Vega bar defense from challenging a specific test result? | Ilg challenges the specific machine's operation, not general science. | Vega precludes attacking general reliability of approved devices. | Vega does not preclude challenges to the specific test results. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Vega, 12 Ohio St.3d 185 (Ohio 1984) (precludes general attack on reliability of breath tests when approved by Director of Health)
- State v. Tanner, 15 Ohio St.3d 1 (Ohio 1984) (defendant may challenge accuracy of specific test results)
- Columbus v. Taylor, 39 Ohio St.3d 162 (Ohio 1988) (defendant may challenge accuracy of specific test results)
- French v. State, 72 Ohio St.3d 446 (Ohio 1995) (waiver of suppression does not bar trial challenges to results)
- State v. Edwards, 107 Ohio St.3d 169 (Ohio 2005) (defense may attack breath-test results under evidentiary grounds beyond suppression)
- State v. Burnside, 100 Ohio St.3d 152 (Ohio 2003) (Director's reliability determinations rest with the Director of Health)