State v. Beasley
2019 Ohio 719
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- On Sept. 1, 2015 Columbus charged David Beasley with two OVI counts (Columbus City Code 2133.01(A)(1)(a) and R.C. 4511.19(A)(2)).
- Officer West approached a parked car at a closed gas station at ~1:44 a.m.; he smelled alcohol and marijuana, saw keys in the ignition, and observed the driver (Beasley) "fumbling" and admit he had been drinking.
- West handcuffed Beasley and placed him in his cruiser while waiting for Officer Derwacter (who had recording equipment); Derwacter arrived, Beasley initially refused field sobriety tests, then later performed three tests and exhibited impairment; he was arrested and refused breath testing.
- Beasley testified he was a passenger after giving the keys to a companion, and later lied about driving to avoid testing; companion corroborated she placed keys in a cup holder and that both were intoxicated.
- Trial court denied Beasley’s suppression motion (finding the initial encounter consensual and that officer had probable cause). A jury convicted; sentence was imposed on the Columbus Code OVI count. Beasley appealed raising suppression, sufficiency/weight, failure-to-instruct on physical-control, and ineffective-assistance claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Motion to suppress: Was the encounter, detention, and arrest lawful? | City: initial contact was a consensual encounter; officer developed reasonable suspicion and probable cause to detain and arrest based on odor of alcohol/marijuana, keys in ignition, admissions, and observations. | Beasley: arrest occurred before field tests; officer lacked probable cause; evidence post-arrest (field tests) should be suppressed. | Denied – suppression denial affirmed. Court treated initial contact as consensual; handcuffing/placement in cruiser was a lawful investigative detention supported by reasonable suspicion, and subsequent arrest was supported by the totality of circumstances. |
| 2. Sufficiency / manifest weight of evidence: Did evidence support OVI conviction? | City: Officer observations, odor, admission of drinking, keys in ignition, and field sobriety performance suffice. | Beasley: no direct proof he drove while impaired; timing between driving and contact uncertain; conflicting testimony. | Affirmed – evidence (direct and circumstantial) was sufficient and conviction was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. |
| 3. Jury instruction on physical control (lesser-included): Should court have instructed on R.C. 4511.194 physical-control? | City: instruction not required; statutory element analysis unnecessary here. | Beasley: physical control is a logical lesser-included offense and jury should have been instructed. | No plain error. Court found no precedent in the district and mixed authority statewide; because defendant did not request the instruction, failure to give it was not plain error. |
| 4. Ineffective assistance of counsel: Did counsel’s performance prejudice Beasley? | City: even if some omissions occurred, Beasley cannot show prejudice; suppression and verdict would not have changed. | Beasley: counsel failed to argue probable cause at suppression hearing, failed to request physical-control instruction, failed to move for acquittal, misstepped in voir dire, and failed to produce a witness list. | Denied. Court assumed some deficiencies but found no reasonable probability of a different outcome; other alleged errors were strategic or non-prejudicial; cumulative-error claim rejected. |
Key Cases Cited
- Florida v. Jimeno, 500 U.S. 248 (Sup. Ct. 1991) (Fourth Amendment reasonableness principle)
- Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (Sup. Ct. 1967) (search/seizure privacy standard)
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (Sup. Ct. 1968) (investigative stops/seizures require reasonable, articulable suspicion)
- United States v. Watson, 423 U.S. 411 (Sup. Ct. 1976) (warrantless public arrest supported by probable cause is lawful)
- Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (Sup. Ct. 1983) (totality-of-the-circumstances test for probable cause)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (Sup. Ct. 1984) (two-part test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328 (Ohio 2012) (manifest weight vs. sufficiency standards)
- State v. Homan, 89 Ohio St.3d 421 (Ohio 2000) (probable cause for OVI arrests; totality of circumstances)
- State v. Deanda, 136 Ohio St.3d 18 (Ohio 2013) (lesser-included-offense two-tier test)