State v. Croft, 2016 Ohio 449

On Aug. 8, 2014 Trooper Posada stopped Christina Croft for speeding and smelled alcohol in her vehicle.
Croft initially denied drinking, later admitted to having two beers earlier, and produced the wrong insurance document.
Trooper Posada administered field sobriety tests; Croft performed poorly on the walk-and-turn and one-leg-stand and refused a preliminary breath test and further chemical testing.
Croft was charged with speeding (R.C. 4511.21(D)(1)) and OVI (R.C. 4511.19(A)(1)(a)).
Croft withdrew a pretrial motion to suppress alleged defects in the arrest and field tests, proceeded to a bench trial, and was found guilty by the trial court.
On appeal Croft argued her convictions were unsupported by sufficient evidence and were against the manifest weight of the evidence (also raising challenges to probable cause/methods of FSTs, which had been withdrawn at trial).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
1. Sufficiency of the evidence to convict for OVI	State: evidence (odor of alcohol, admission to drinking, poor FST performance, refusal to test) supports each element	Croft: generally contends convictions unsupported and inconsistent with evidence	Court: Evidence was sufficient; any rational trier of fact could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt
2. Manifest weight of the evidence / admissibility of FSTs and probable cause to arrest	State: Trooper’s observations and test results were credible and supported conviction	Croft: challenged probable cause and FST methodology (but withdrew suppression motion and did not preserve objections)	Court: No miscarriage of justice; trial court’s credibility findings entitled to deference; suppression-based challenges waived on appeal; conviction affirmed

State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 678 N.E.2d 541 (1997) (distinguishes sufficiency and manifest-weight standards)
State v. Hunter, 131 Ohio St.3d 67, 960 N.E.2d 955 (2011) (sufficiency standard: view evidence in light most favorable to prosecution)
Tibbs v. Florida, 457 U.S. 31 (1982) (appellate court as thirteenth juror on manifest-weight review)
State v. Peagler, 76 Ohio St.3d 496, 668 N.E.2d 489 (1996) (issues not raised at trial generally not considered on appeal)
Maumee v. Anistik, 69 Ohio St.3d 339, 632 N.E.2d 497 (1994) (refusal to submit to chemical test may be considered by factfinder)
State v. French, 72 Ohio St.3d 446, 650 N.E.2d 887 (1995) (challenges to statutory/ODH compliance/local procedures must be raised via pretrial motion to suppress)
City of Defiance v. Kretz, 60 Ohio St.3d 1, 573 N.E.2d 32 (1991) (suppression motion requirement for certain evidentiary challenges)