State v. Jarrell, 2017 Ohio 520

On Oct. 7, 2014 Trooper Large stopped and arrested Chad Jarrell for OVI after observing traffic violations (no turn signal, left of center) and signs of impairment (strong odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, slurred speech, stumbling). A cruiser video recorded the stop.
At the station Jarrell provided incomplete breath samples on a BAC Datamaster; the machine produced no valid printed result and was recorded as an invalid sample/refusal. Trooper Large testified the on-screen value rose to .156 at one point before the subject stopped blowing.
Patrolman Adkins witnessed the Datamaster attempts, signed the BMV 2255, and performed weekly calibration checks; he testified the machine had been tested the week before and no issues were suspected.
Jarrell was tried by jury, found guilty of OVI (and related traffic offenses), and sentenced; he appealed claiming plain error from admission of the trooper’s testimony about the .156 display and ineffective assistance for failing to object.
The appellate court found the .156 remark was nonresponsive and irrelevant but concluded, under plain-error and Strickland standards, there was no reasonable probability the testimony affected the outcome given other strong evidence (video, odor, driving behavior, field observations).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admission of trooper testimony about a .156 reading on the Datamaster during an invalid/ incomplete test	The State argued the testimony did not create prejudice because the trooper also explained "borderline" and the jury had the video and other evidence; numerical display was context for refusal/invalid-sample observations	Jarrell argued the testimony was irrelevant and nonresponsive, and that testimony of a numerical BAC during an invalid test unfairly prejudiced the jury (plain error)	Court: The .156 remark was irrelevant and nonresponsive but did not constitute plain error because other admissible evidence supported conviction; no reasonable probability the outcome was affected
Ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to object to the .156 testimony	N/A (issue raised by defendant)	Jarrell claimed counsel was deficient for not objecting and seeking a curative instruction, causing prejudice	Court: Claim fails because Jarrell cannot show prejudice under Strickland; counsel’s strategy in eliciting and repeating the number to challenge machine reliability undermines an ineffective-assistance claim

State v. Rogers, 143 Ohio St.3d 385 (addresses Crim.R. 52(B) plain-error caution)
State v. Quarterman, 140 Ohio St.3d 454 (burden to demonstrate plain error on the record)
State v. Barnes, 94 Ohio St.3d 21 (plain-error requires affecting outcome)
State v. Long, 53 Ohio St.2d 91 (admonition to notice plain error only in exceptional circumstances)
State v. Zamorski, 141 Ohio App.3d 521 (invalid breath-test display testimony held inadmissible and prejudicial)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
State v. DeHass, 10 Ohio St.2d 230 (appellate deference to factfinder on witness credibility)