State v. Line, 2019 Ohio 4221

On Nov. 10, 2018, Lima police observed Larry Line leaving a bar around 1:59 a.m.; officers stopped his vehicle after observing it roll through a stop sign and exhibit unusual lane movement.
Patrolman Thompson noticed bloodshot/glassy eyes, slurred speech, and odor of alcohol; Patrolman Cooper arrived, also smelled alcohol, observed slow movements, and testified Line admitted consuming two rum-and-cokes.
Cooper administered HGN testing and recorded four out of six HGN clues; he testified his training indicated that result suggested impairment.
Line was charged with OVI (R.C. 4511.19(A)(1)(a)) and failing to stop at a red light/stop; at bench trial the court convicted Line of OVI and acquitted him on the red-light charge.
Trial counsel had stated an intent to file a suppression motion but filed none; counsel waived opening and closing and did not object to HGN evidence.
Line appealed, arguing (1) insufficient evidence to support OVI and (2) ineffective assistance of counsel (failure to move to suppress, failure to challenge HGN admission, and failure to advocate).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Line)	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for OVI	Officer observations, Line's admission of drinking, and HGN (4/6 clues) plus odor, red eyes, slurred speech and slow movements supported conviction	Evidence insufficient; HGN unreliable here because NHTSA manual not admitted and indicators alone do not prove impairment	Conviction affirmed — viewing evidence in State's favor a rational trier of fact could find intoxication beyond a reasonable doubt; HGN admissible with officer foundation and other corroborating signs
Ineffective assistance of counsel	Counsel’s choices were tactical and any omissions caused no prejudice; stop and HGN evidence were admissible so suppression or objections would have failed	Counsel was ineffective for not filing suppression motion, not objecting to HGN, and failing to advocate (waived openings/closings; limited cross-exam)	Ineffective-assistance claim denied — no substantial violation or prejudice: stop was lawful (traffic violation), HGN foundation was established, tactical waivers not prejudicial, and cumulative-error claim fails because individual claims lack merit

State v. Bresson, 51 Ohio St.3d 123 (Ohio 1990) (HGN is a reliable BAC indicator and admissible with proper officer foundation)
State v. Mays, 119 Ohio St.3d 406 (Ohio 2008) (officer may stop a motorist based on reasonable, articulable suspicion of traffic violation)
State v. Lytle, 48 Ohio St.2d 391 (Ohio 1976) (two-part ineffective-assistance analysis: deficiency and prejudice)
State v. Hester, 45 Ohio St.2d 71 (Ohio 1976) (effective-assistance inquiry asks whether defendant had a fair trial and substantial justice was done)
State v. Calhoun, 86 Ohio St.3d 279 (Ohio 1999) (burden on defendant to prove counsel ineffective; licensed attorneys presumed competent)
State v. Burke, 73 Ohio St.3d 399 (Ohio 1995) (waiver of closing argument can be tactical and not per se ineffective assistance)
State v. Conway, 109 Ohio St.3d 412 (Ohio 2006) (scope of cross-examination is trial strategy; debatable tactics do not establish ineffective assistance)
State v. Arnold, 147 Ohio St.3d 138 (Ohio 2016) (bench-trial context may reduce risk of prejudice from certain evidentiary errors)
State v. Garner, 74 Ohio St.3d 49 (Ohio 1995) (cumulative-error reversal requires multiple prejudicial errors that together deny a fair trial)