State v. Chapman
2017 Ohio 8181
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Early-morning traffic stop after trooper observed abrupt braking and an improper turn; Eric Chapman was sole occupant and driver.
- Trooper detected strong odor of alcohol, bloodshot/glassy eyes, slurred speech and nervousness; Chapman denied drinking and handed officer a lawyer’s card but agreed to field-sobriety tests.
- Officer administered HGN (6/6 clues), walk-and-turn (6/8 clues), and one-leg-stand (3/4 clues); officer arrested Chapman and transported him to the station, where Chapman refused a breath test.
- Chapman testified he was a bartender, exhausted and in pain from chronic musculoskeletal conditions and recent work; he denied alcohol use and refused the breath test due to distrust and advice from clients.
- Chapman sought to present testimony from treating chiropractor Dr. Thomas Eliopulos that the medical condition could have affected SFST performance; the trial court excluded that testimony as not relevant.
- Jury convicted Chapman of OVI (former R.C. 4511.19(A)(1)(A)), refusal (former R.C. 4511.19(A)(2)), and improper turn; on appeal, convictions were affirmed (one appeal dismissed as to the turn), and exclusion of the chiropractor’s testimony was upheld.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of treating chiropractor’s expert testimony under Evid.R. 702/Daubert | Expert testimony should be excluded if not relevant; proponent failed to show fit and reliable basis | Dr. Eliopulos could explain how chronic injuries/conditions could impair SFST performance and should be admitted | Trial court did not abuse discretion excluding testimony for lack of relevance/fit because doctor had not treated Chapman near time of arrest and opinion was speculative |
| Manifest weight of the evidence as to OVI/refusal convictions | Trooper’s observations and SFST results—and refusal to take breath test—support convictions | Chapman’s testimony (pain, exhaustion, no alcohol) was more credible and undermines conviction | Convictions were not against the manifest weight; credibility choices were for the jury |
Key Cases Cited
- Valentine v. Conrad, 110 Ohio St.3d 42 (Ohio 2006) (trial courts have broad discretion on expert admissibility)
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (U.S. 1993) (trial court gatekeeper role assessing reliability and relevance)
- Miller v. Bike Athletic Co., 80 Ohio St.3d 607 (Ohio 1998) (applying Daubert standard in Ohio)
- Thompkins v. Ohio, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (Ohio 1997) (standard for manifest-weight review)
- State v. Bryan, 101 Ohio St.3d 272 (Ohio 2004) (credibility determinations are for the trier of fact)
- Terry v. Caputo, 115 Ohio St.3d 351 (Ohio 2007) (expert testimony must "fit" the issues and assist the trier of fact)
- State v. Waldock, 33 N.E.3d 505 (Ohio App. 2015) (relevance/fit requirement for expert testimony)