State v. Husted, 23 N.E.3d 253

Husted was found in the driver’s seat of a vehicle at ~12:45 a.m. with keys in reach and appeared drowsy or unresponsive.
Officer observed a cut-off straw in her lap and she admitted snorting drugs, though she did not identify the substance.
Husted declined both field sobriety tests and a urine test at the jail.
There was no chemical test result or definite drug identification presented at trial.
The State charged physical control while under the influence of a drug of abuse under R.C. 4511.194(B)(1).
The trial court denied Crim.R. 29 motion for acquittal; the case proceeded to a jury which returned a guilty verdict, later appealed by Husted.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the evidence showed Husted was under the influence of a drug of abuse.	Husted asserts no evidence of a drug of abuse or nexus.	State argues circumstantial evidence shows impairment consistent with drug use.	Reversed; insufficient nexus to a drug of abuse; judgment vacated.

State v. Tenace, 109 Ohio St.3d 255 (Ohio Sup. Ct. 2006) (sufficiency standard for Crim.R. 29/a and appellate review)
State v. Collins, 2012-Ohio-2236 (Ninth Dist. Wayne 2012) (need nexus between impairment and drug of abuse; no chemical test required)
State v. Strebler, 2006-Ohio-5711 (Ninth Dist. Summit 2006) (chemical evidence not always required to prove drug impairment)
State v. Turner, 2013-Ohio-3145 (Eighth Dist. Cuyahoga 2013) (no nexus between impairment and drug of abuse)
State v. May, 2014-Ohio-1542 (Second Dist. Montgomery 2014) (medication-based impairment requires evidence of specific drug and effect)
State v. Samples, 2012-Ohio-2236 (Ninth Dist. Wayne 2012) (insufficient evidence linking impairment to a drug of abuse)