State v. Codeluppi
2012 Ohio 5812
Ohio Ct. App.2012Background
- Defendant Corrine Codeluppi was stopped for speeding (53 in a 35) and, upon contact, Officer Young smelled alcohol.
- Codeluppi admitted to visiting two bars and consuming two drinks; she exited the vehicle to undergo field sobriety testing.
- Officer Young administered HGN, Walk and Turn, and One Leg Stand tests; she exhibited conduct and performance issues during testing.
- Codeluppi was arrested for OVI and speeding; she moved to suppress the resulting evidence and challenged the lawfulness of the stop and arrest.
- The trial court denied the suppression motion without a hearing, converted the suppression proceeding to a pretrial, and later, Codeluppi pled no contest to OVI and speeding; the speeding charge was then dismissed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the trial court err by denying the suppression motion without allowing a reply? | Codeluppi | State | No abuse; no requirement to permit a reply under Traf.R. 11(E) before ruling |
| Was the suppression motion sufficiently particular under Crim.R. 47 so an evidentiary hearing was required? | Codeluppi | State | Motion lacked particularity; no hearing required |
| Did the court err in addressing suppression before a hearing and/or in light of local rules, given moot issues on appeal? | Codeluppi | State | Ruling upheld; fourth and fifth assignments moot; judgment affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Shindler, 70 Ohio St.3d 54 (1994) (Crim.R. 47 sufficiency and need for hearing when motion sufficiently particular)
- Hartley, 51 Ohio App.3d 47 (1988) (Crim.R. 12/F and suppression hearing standard)
- Westerville v. Sagraves, 2005-Ohio-5078 (Ohio Court of Appeals (10th Dist.) 2005) (abuse-of-discretion review for suppression ruling without hearing when factual allegations present)