State v. Hensley, 2014 Ohio 5012

On July 27, 2013, Deputy Grossenbaugh stopped Brandon Hensley after observing erratic driving (weaving, striking a curb, illegal U-turn). He smelled alcohol and saw open/empty containers in the vehicle.
Grossenbaugh observed slurred speech and bloodshot eyes and administered three field sobriety tests (HGN, walk-and-turn, one-leg stand); Hensley failed all three and refused breath and urine tests after arrest.
The state charged Hensley with OVI under R.C. 4511.19(A)(1)(a) and the enhanced/refusal provisions of R.C. 4511.19(A)(2)(a)(b), plus a habitual-offender specification under R.C. 2941.1413(A) (parties stipulated Hensley had five prior OVI convictions within 20 years).
Trial court allowed testimony about Hensley’s HGN performance (but excluded statistical BAC estimates from that testimony) after ruling on a motion in limine.
A jury convicted Hensley on both OVI counts and the habitual-offender specifications. The court merged counts, proceeded on the felony count, and imposed consecutive sentences: 2 years on the felony OVI and 4 years on the specification, for a 6-year aggregate term.
Hensley appealed, raising (1) manifest-weight challenge, (2) evidentiary error as to HGN testimony, and (3) sentencing error under Ohio sentencing statutes.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Hensley)	Held
1. Whether conviction is against the manifest weight of the evidence	Evidence (traffic observations, odor, containers, SFST failures, refusal to submit to chemical tests, stipulation of prior convictions) supports guilt	Hensley said he drank only 5–6 beers earlier, was not impaired, and disputed credibility of officer testimony	Court: Conviction not against manifest weight; jury reasonably credited prosecution evidence
2. Admissibility of HGN testimony	HGN performance and administration are admissible when given by a properly qualified officer as probative of impairment	Hensley objected to HGN testimony (argued improper/unduly prejudicial)	Court: Trial court did not abuse discretion; officer could testify to test administration and results but not BAC probability; any error harmless given overwhelming evidence
3. Lawfulness of aggregate 6-year sentence	Sentencing within statutory range and court considered R.C. 2929.11/2929.12; Sturgill precedent supports consecutive/additional mandatory term for specification	Hensley argued aggregate exceeded a five-year statutory limit (relied on contrary district precedent)	Court: Sentence not contrary to law; applied this court’s Sturgill reading and affirmed 6-year aggregate term

State v. Bresson, 51 Ohio St.3d 123 (1990) (HGN is a reliable tool and a qualified officer may testify to HGN performance to show impairment)