Cincinnati v. Neff
2014 Ohio 2026
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- Neff charged with driving with a prohibited breath-alcohol concentration and DUI in Hamilton County Municipal Court.
- Neff sought ODH records related to the Intoxilyzer 8000, including online breath archives and maintenance data.
- ODH moved to quash the subpoena, arguing burden and oppression; trial court denied the motion.
- Appellate issue: whether denial of a Crim.R. 17 subpoena is a final, appealable order under R.C. 2505.02.
- Trial court did not hold sworn evidentiary testimony at the hearing on the subpoena.
- Appellate court reverses and remands, ruling the subpoena issue requires proper evidentiary procedure.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Finality of denial of subpoena quash | Neff argues denial is a final, appealable order. | ODH argues not a final appealable order. | The order is final and appealable. |
| Necessity of an evidentiary hearing on Crim.R. 17 subpoena | Neff contends an evidentiary hearing was required. | ODH argues hearing not required with briefing alone. | Remand for proper evidentiary hearing required. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Subpoena Duces Tecum Served upon Attorney Potts, 100 Ohio St.3d 97 (2003-Ohio-5234) (Crim.R. 17 requires evidentiary hearing on subpoenas)
- State v. Strickland, 183 Ohio App.3d 602 (2009-Ohio-3906) (abuse-of-discretion standard for subpoena rulings)
- State v. Jeffery, 2012-Ohio-3104 (2d Dist. Montgomery) (subpoena as a provisional remedy; final appealability)
- Scott Process Systems, Inc. v. Mitchell, 2012-Ohio-5971 (5th Dist. Stark) (finality of subpoena rulings under Crim.R. 17)
- Cincinnati v. Ilg, 2013-Ohio-2191 (1st Dist. Hamilton) (procedural standards for subpoenas in criminal discovery)