State v. Leiter
2017 Ohio 8537
Ohio Ct. App.2017Background
- Deputy observed Leiter's pickup partially off-road at night with no lights; driver sped away when approached and parked in an apartment lot.
- Deputy smelled alcohol, observed slurred speech, bloodshot/glassy eyes, lethargy, imbalance, open alcohol containers, a prescription bottle, fresh mud and a Carlisle 35 mph speed-limit sign in the truck bed, and tree-bark damage to the truck.
- Leiter admitted drinking at one point, later agreed to a hospital blood draw; BAC was .058 but blood testing detected benzodiazepines and opiates (including alprazolam).
- Prosecutor charged OVI with a prior-offender specification (five-plus OVIs in 20 years), possession of drugs, and possession of a traffic control sign; Leiter waived jury trial and the bench found him guilty on all counts.
- Trial court imposed 6.5 years incarceration and permanent driver's-license revocation; Leiter appealed challenging sufficiency/manifest weight and asserting ineffective assistance of counsel.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency/manifest weight of evidence for OVI, drug possession, sign possession | Evidence of impairment (officer observations), controlled substances in blood, physical evidence (sign, open containers) proves crimes | Evidence insufficient: low BAC and prescribed meds could explain results; factual disputes | Convictions affirmed — evidence sufficient and not against manifest weight |
| Applicability of prior-O VI specification | State presented records showing eight prior OVI convictions within 20 years | Leiter did not dispute prior-conviction proof on appeal | Specification stands; mandatory term applied as appropriate |
| Ineffective assistance for not presenting defense expert on drug tolerance/medical use | State: cross-examination of state's toxicologist elicited testimony supporting therapeutic use; strategy to rely on cross-exam was reasonable | Leiter: counsel should have called an expert to show tolerance and lawful prescription use, which could have changed outcome | Counsel not ineffective — strategic choice; no reasonable probability of different result |
| Ineffective assistance for failing to move to suppress/coerce statements and for lack of witness prep | State: record shows no custodial interrogation or facts supporting a successful suppression motion; counsel prepared defendant and cross-examined experts | Leiter: statements were coerced and counsel failed to prepare/test suppression, prejudicing defense | Counsel not ineffective — no record basis for successful suppression; no evidence of lack of preparation or prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (1997) (defines sufficiency and weight review standards in Ohio criminal cases)
- State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (1991) (standard for sufficiency review: evidence viewed in light most favorable to prosecution)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-pronged test for ineffective assistance of counsel: deficient performance and prejudice)
- State v. Drummond, 111 Ohio St.3d 14 (2006) (failure to file suppression motion not ineffective absent record showing the motion would succeed)