State v. Crowe, 2016 Ohio 1579

Officer stopped Crowe after radar showed him driving 54 mph in a 35 mph zone; Crowe initially continued driving after lights/siren and lacked a valid license.
Officer observed slow/monotone speech, bloodshot eyes, unsteady standing, and a strong fruity odor; empty beer cans and four empty plus one unopened cool cans of fruit-flavored alcoholic beverage (Sparks) were found in the van.
Crowe admitted others had been in the van drinking, refused two field sobriety tests citing a prior injury but submitted to HGN, on which he exhibited three of six clues.
Crowe was transported to the station and refused a breath test, stating he wanted an attorney; he has five prior OVI convictions within 20 years.
Charged with OVI and related specification; bench trial denied Crowe's continuance request, found him guilty, merged counts, and sentenced him to two years imprisonment for the OVI and specification.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial court abused discretion by denying continuance for absent defense witness	State: denial proper given case delay, prior continuance, state's readiness, and limited value of witness testimony	Crowe: witness was 'key' and absence warranted continuance; he could not locate address	Court: no abuse of discretion; factors (length, prior continuance, defendant's failure to subpoena, inconvenience) weighed against continuance
Whether evidence was sufficient to support OVI conviction and specification	State: officer observations, HGN results, presence of alcoholic beverages, refusal to take breath test, and video supported conviction	Crowe: contested sufficiency; argued evidence insufficient to prove he had driven while intoxicated or consumed alcohol	Court: evidence (circumstantial and direct) sufficient when viewed in light most favorable to prosecution; conviction affirmed
Whether HGN required expert testimony to be admitted/relied upon as scientific evidence	State: HGN admissible without expert if foundation shows officer's training and proper technique	Crowe: HGN is scientific and needed expert explanation; trial court improperly relied on it without expert	Court: no plain error; Boczar allows HGN without expert where proper foundation shown; officer qualified, technique proper; any reference to "scientific" was harmless given other evidence

State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (standard for sufficiency review)
State v. Boczar, 113 Ohio St.3d 148 (HGN results admissible without expert if proper foundation established)
State v. Franklin, 97 Ohio St.3d 1 (factors to consider when ruling on continuance)
State v. Long, 53 Ohio St.2d 91 (plain error standard in criminal cases)
State v. Jackson, 107 Ohio St.3d 53 (definition of abuse of discretion)
State v. McKnight, 107 Ohio St.3d 101 (circumstantial evidence sufficiency principles)