2013 Ohio 5811
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Defendant Denise Bergman appealed suppression ruling involving results from an Intoxilyzer 8000 breath-test device approved by the Ohio Department of Health.
- The Eleventh District convened en banc to resolve an intradistrict conflict over whether the state must prove the general reliability of an ODH‑approved Intoxilyzer 8000 at a suppression hearing.
- A panel had previously excluded breath-test results absent the State proving general device reliability; this conflicted with other Eleventh District decisions.
- The majority held that, under prior Eleventh District precedent, when the device is approved by the Director of Health the State need not prove the device’s general reliability at a suppression hearing.
- The court reversed the municipal court judgment, affirmed prior Eleventh District cases (Rouse, Carter, Miller, Johnson), and overruled contrary opinions; two judges dissented, arguing trial courts retain discretion to require proof of reliability and expressing substantive due process concerns.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the State must prove general reliability of an ODH‑approved Intoxilyzer 8000 at a suppression hearing | State: No; approval by Director of Health obviates need to prove general reliability | Bergman: Yes; court may require proof because statutes are discretionary and due process forbids admitting potentially unreliable, effectively conclusive results | Held: No — under Eleventh Dist. precedent, the State need not prove general reliability of an ODH‑approved device; prior contrary decisions reversed |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Vega, 12 Ohio St.3d 185 (Ohio 1984) (holding that expert testimony generally attacking breath‑analysis machines does not deprive defendant of ability to present a defense when machine is approved)
- Westerville v. Cunningham, 15 Ohio St.2d 121 (Ohio 1968) (recognizing breath tests as generally reliable when proper equipment and competent operators are used)
- Sandstrom v. Montana, 442 U.S. 510 (U.S. 1979) (conclusive presumptions shifting burden of proof can violate due process)
- Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880 (U.S. 1983) (submission of seemingly conclusive but actually unreliable evidence can violate substantive due process)
- State v. Sage, 31 Ohio St.3d 173 (Ohio 1987) (admission or exclusion of evidence rests within trial court discretion)