State v. Jones
2013 Ohio 4114
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Jones was cited for speeding, OVI, and prohibited BAC; he pled not guilty.
- Jones moved to suppress his Intoxilyzer 8000 breath-test results, challenging device reliability and testing protocol.
- Trooper observed odor of alcohol, glassy eyes, slurred speech; Jones failed field sobriety tests and blew a .129 on the Intoxilyzer 8000.
- Ms. Martin testified about Subject Test Reports, dry gas controls, and the Department’s data systems COBRA and a public website with varying data presentation.
- The trial court suppressed the breath test, finding a general attack on reliability and non-compliance with dry gas controls; it also critiqued changes to the Department’s reporting language and records.
- On appeal, the court reversed and remanded, holding the state need only show substantial compliance with regulations and that Jones failed to show prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a general attack on reliability was proper | State argued due to Vega/Carter framework, no general attack needed. | Jones argued for a specific-device challenge, not a general attack. | First assignment sustained: proper to treat as general reliability attack and remand to reinstate per-se charge. |
| Whether testing protocol complied with 3701-53-04(B) | State asserted substantial compliance; dry gas before first and after last sample suffices. | Jones argued need for dry gas before and after each breath sample. | Second assignment sustained: proper interpretation allows one dry gas before first and after second sample; substantial compliance shown. |
| Whether changes to the Department's reporting/records affected admissibility | No prejudice; website changes do not alter test results; records retained adequately. | Changes to terminology on website implied altered records. | Third assignment sustained: no admissibility violation from website terminology changes; retention complied; no prejudice shown. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Vega, 12 Ohio St.3d 185 (Ohio Supreme Court 1984) (director-determined reliability; not every defendant may attack generally)
- State v. Carter, 2012-Ohio-5583 (Ohio App. 11th Dist. 2012) (acknowledged Director of Health authority; general reliability presumed; burden on defendant for specific challenges)
- State v. Urso, 195 Ohio App.3d 665 (2011-Ohio-4702) (general vs. specific challenges to breathalyzer reliability)
- State v. Dijsheff, 11th Dist. No. 2005-T-0001, 2006-Ohio-6201 (Ohio) (de novo review of suppression rulings; standard for appellate review)
- State v. Kormos, 2012-Ohio-3128 (12th Dist. 2012) (interprets 3701-53-04(B) regarding single subject test and dry gas controls)
- Cincinnati v. Nicholson, 2013-Ohio-708 (First District 2013) (adopted Kormos analysis on subject test interpretation)
- State v. Dugan, 2013-Ohio-447 (12th Dist. 2013) (record retention and substantial compliance considerations)
- State v. Consilio, 2007-Ohio-4163 (Ohio Supreme Court 2007) (interpretation of administrative regulations; de novo review)