State v. Detienne
2017 Ohio 9105
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background:
- Early-morning crash on March 3, 2016; defendant Kerry Detienne found dazed in driver’s seat with facial laceration and confused speech.
- Officer observed signs of impairment; Detienne admitted taking Zoloft and Adderall and trying other drugs; transported to hospital.
- Urine test (sent to OSU Wexner Medical Center) showed amphetamine concentration 3,286 ng/mL (well above statutory 500 ng/mL threshold) and several other substances.
- Detienne asserted the affirmative defense of medical authorization (claiming prescribed medications) but did not produce prescription records or identify the prescribing licensed health professional at trial.
- Trial court convicted on OVI while under influence of a controlled substance (R.C. 4511.19(A)(1)(j)) and Failure to Control; sentenced with jail, license suspension, fines (majority suspended with conditions).
- On appeal Detienne raised: (1) manifest-weight challenge (medical authorization defense); (2) Confrontation Clause challenge to admission of lab report without analyst testimony; (3) ineffective assistance for counsel’s failure to demand analyst’s live testimony under the 7-day statutory rule.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether conviction is against the manifest weight where defendant asserted medical-authorization affirmative defense | State: evidence (urine amphetamine level) supports conviction; defendant failed to prove prescription/authorized use by preponderance | Detienne: he regularly took prescribed meds (Adderall etc.), so statutory medical-authorization (R.C. 4511.19(K)) exempts him | Court: No miscarriage of justice; defendant failed to prove prescriptions/licensed prescriber or that those meds contained amphetamine; conviction upheld |
| Whether admission of laboratory report without analyst testimony violated the Confrontation Clause | State: served report pretrial; defendant failed to demand analyst under R.C. 4511.19(E)(3), so report admitted as prima-facie evidence; statutory notice-and-demand waives confrontation right | Detienne: report was testimonial; admission without live testimony violated Sixth Amendment per Crawford/Melendez-Diaz/Bullcoming | Court: Confrontation right waived by failure to demand testimony within seven days; admission proper under Pasqualone and statute |
| Whether trial counsel was ineffective for not demanding analyst testimony within seven days | State: decision not to demand testimony is tactical; counsel’s choice falls within strategic discretion | Detienne: counsel’s failure to invoke statutory demand waived confrontation and prejudiced defense | Court: No ineffective assistance—decision was reasonable trial strategy and defendant did not show prejudice under Strickland |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (weight-of-the-evidence standard and manifest-miscarriage framework)
- State v. Hunter, 131 Ohio St.3d 67 (appellate review principles for weight/sufficiency)
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (Confrontation Clause: testimonial statements and right to cross-examination)
- Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (lab reports as testimonial evidence implicating confrontation)
- Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 564 U.S. 647 (analyst testimony requirement under Confrontation Clause)
- State v. Pasqualone, 121 Ohio St.3d 186 (Ohio: compliance with notice-and-demand statute waives right to cross-examine analyst)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective-assistance two-prong test)
- McMann v. Richardson, 397 U.S. 759 (right to counsel)
- State v. Maxwell, 139 Ohio St.3d 12 (Confrontation Clause discussion in Ohio context)