State v. Canino
2013 Ohio 551
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Canino was charged with OVI and related offenses following a January 2012 traffic stop.
- Canino moved to suppress the breath test results from the Intoxilyzer 8000, claiming the instrument or operator issues and noncompliance with regulations.
- Canino asserted the testing instrument was not in proper working order and the operator lacked qualifications.
- The State argued no general reliability challenge was required, citing Vega to support admissibility through statutory approval.
- The municipal court granted suppression, relying on Johnson to require general reliability evidence, and dismissed the related charge.
- The State appealed, challenging the court’s gatekeeping approach and seeking reversal/remand for proper consideration of reliability.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a trial court may require general reliability evidence for an approved breath tester before admitting results. | State: Vega bars general attack; no general reliability proof required. | Canino: Court may, and must, require reliability evidence as gatekeeper. | State must establish general reliability; remand for further proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Vega, 12 Ohio St.3d 185 (1984) (general attack on instrument reliability not allowed; adherence to director-approved methods)
- State v. Mayl, 106 Ohio St.3d 207 (2005) (gate-keeping statute delegating reliability assessment to director of health)
- State v. Boczar, 113 Ohio St.3d 148 (2007) (judiciary not stripped of evidentiary authority; legislative provisions interplay)
- State v. Davidson, 17 Ohio St.3d 132 (1985) (a pretrial challenge to breathalyzer test can be a final order appealable under certain rules)
- State v. Grubb, 28 Ohio St.3d 199 (1986) (motion in limine distinctions; finality principles in evidentiary rulings)