State v. May
970 N.E.2d 1029
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- Terrance May was convicted of one count of operating a vehicle under the influence (OVI) after a jury trial in Columbiana County, Ohio.
- Trooper Thompson arrested May, observing red, glassy eyes, slurred speech, odor of alcohol, and May’s failure to follow directions after a crash on State Route 558 in daylight on a clear day.
- May refused field sobriety tests and a breathalyzer; witnesses at the scene reported May was drinking after the crash, not before.
- A suppression motion denied alleged lack of probable cause; the trooper’s observations formed the basis for probable cause to arrest.
- At trial, the State elicited hearsay about post-accident drinking from witnesses at the scene, over defense objection, which violated Confrontation Clause protections.
- The trial court admitted the hearsay, and the court concluded the error was reversible, ordering a new trial; however, the court remanded only for a new trial due to the hearsay error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Probable cause to arrest for OVI | May argues no probable cause; court erred in considering refusals. | State contends probable cause existed from observations and crash circumstances. | Probable cause existed; error harmless with other evidence |
| Use of refusals in probable cause determination | May asserts refusals should not factor into probable cause. | State relies on refusals as part of the totality of circumstances. | Refusal to take tests could be considered, but error harmless here |
| Hearsay and Confrontation Clause | Witness statements about post-accident drinking were inadmissible hearsay and violated confrontation rights. | State contends statements were admissible as part of investigation or non-testimonial. | Hearsay was testimonial and violated Confrontation Clause; not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt |
| Sufficiency of the evidence | Conviction lacked legally sufficient evidence. | Evidence supported guilt. | Evidence sufficient to sustain conviction; not meritorious |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Homan, 89 Ohio St.3d 421 (Ohio 2000) (probable cause and totality of the circumstances framework)
- State v. Salas, 9th Dist. No. 21891, 2004-Ohio-6274 (2004) (de novo review of probable cause on mixed questions of law and fact)
- Filchock, 166 Ohio App.3d 611 (11th Dist. 2006) (officer observed impairment after accident and probable cause to arrest)
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (U.S. 2004) (Confrontation Clause; testimonial statements require cross-examination)
- Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 (U.S. 2006) (ongoing emergency exception to testimonial nature of statements)
- Brewer, 121 Ohio St.3d 202 (Ohio 2009) (evidence sufficiency and evidentiary rulings in sufficiency context)
- State v. Stahl, 2006-Ohio-5482 (Ohio 2006) (testimonial vs. non-testimonial statements framework)