State v. Henson
2020 Ohio 4019
Ohio Ct. App.2020Background
- At ~1:00 a.m. a MedCare paramedic followed a light-colored SUV that was driving erratically and called 1-800-GRAB-DUI; the trooper located the SUV and stopped it after a marked-lanes violation.
- Trooper Blackwelder smelled alcohol, observed red/glassy eyes and slurred speech, and removed Henson from the vehicle; Henson denied drinking (said he’d worked a 14-hour shift).
- Henson was seated in the patrol cruiser while the trooper administered the HGN test (6/6 clues), then walk-and-turn (6 clues) and one-leg stand (3 clues); additional nonstandard tests showed impairment.
- Henson refused a chemical/breath test; he had a prior OVI within 20 years and was arrested and charged under R.C. 4511.19(A)(2).
- The trial court denied Henson’s suppression motion (reasonable suspicion, substantial compliance with NHTSA standards, and probable cause to arrest). A jury convicted him; he was sentenced to 180 days (155 suspended) and two years community control.
- Henson appealed, raising three primary assignments of error: suppression of the HGN (performed seated), admission of refusal testimony after he asked for counsel, and that the conviction was against the manifest weight of the evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Legality/admissibility of HGN performed while seated | Trooper was trained, followed NHTSA technique, and the test is admissible if performed in substantial compliance even if seated | HGN not in substantial compliance because it was administered while Henson was seated (alleged reduction in scientific validity) | Affirmed: Seated HGN admissible where officer credibly testified to training and NHTSA-consistent technique; trial court’s finding of substantial compliance upheld |
| Admission of testimony/video showing refusal after request for counsel | Evidence relevant and admissible; no constitutional right to counsel before chemical test; court gave curative instruction; statutory-counsel violations do not require exclusion | Testimony should be excluded because defendant asked to speak with counsel before chemical testing | Overruled: No Fifth/Sixth Amendment right to counsel at that stage; statutory right (R.C. 2935.20) is not subject to exclusionary-rule suppression; court gave curative instruction and defendant testified to refusal making any error harmless |
| Reasonable suspicion/probable cause for stop, field sobriety tests, and arrest | Trooper had observed lane violation and smelled alcohol, and observed signs (eyes, speech); reasonable, articulable suspicion supported detention and testing; probable cause supported arrest | Lack of lawful cause to detain/arrest and insufficient basis to administer field sobriety tests | Affirmed: Court found trooper had reasonable suspicion for stop and tests and probable cause to arrest; findings supported by record |
| Manifest weight of the evidence (OVI conviction) | Driving behavior, odor of alcohol, red/glassy eyes, slurred speech, multiple FST failures, refusal, and prior OVI support conviction | Defendant said he was merely tired and distracted; challenged lack of direct proof of alcohol and paramedic’s misidentification of race | Affirmed: Jury credibility findings reasonable; circumstantial evidence supports intoxication and conviction was not against manifest weight |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Burnside, 100 Ohio St.3d 152 (Ohio 2003) (appellate review standard for suppression motions: accept trial court fact findings, review legal conclusions de novo)
- State v. Bozcar, 113 Ohio St.3d 148 (Ohio 2007) (HGN admissible without expert testimony where officer’s training and technique foundation is shown)
- State v. Mills, 62 Ohio St.3d 357 (Ohio 1992) (trial court as factfinder at suppression hearings and credibility determinations)
- State v. Fanning, 1 Ohio St.3d 19 (Ohio 1982) (deference to trial court fact findings on suppression)
- McNulty v. Curry, 42 Ohio St.2d 341 (Ohio 1975) (no constitutional right to counsel before chemical test)
- Dobbins v. Ohio Bureau of Motor Vehicles, 75 Ohio St.3d 533 (Ohio 1996) (right to counsel protections do not apply to the stage when officer requests chemical tests)
- State v. Griffith, 74 Ohio St.3d 554 (Ohio 1996) (exclusionary rule is not proper remedy for violation of statutory right to counsel)
- State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (Ohio 1997) (standard for manifest-weight review)
- State v. DeHass, 10 Ohio St.2d 230 (Ohio 1967) (deference to jury on witness credibility)
- State v. Nicely, 39 Ohio St.3d 147 (Ohio 1988) (circumstantial evidence may be as probative as direct evidence)