State v. McCune, 2013 Ohio 547

McCune was charged with OVI and related offenses after a 2012 traffic stop in Portage County, Ohio.
McCune challenged breath-test results and moved to suppress them, arguing the test and machinery credibility were not properly established.
The trial court granted suppression of the Intoxilyzer 8000 breath test results, citing lack of general reliability proof.
The State appealed, arguing the device was approved by the Director of Health and that general reliability could not be attacked under Vega.
Lower court noted a prior case (Johnson) and treated Vega as controlling to foreclose general reliability challenges, but withdrew the suppression order.
On appeal, the Eleventh District reverses, holding the trial court could require reliability proof and that the breath-test results should not have been suppressed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
May a trial court require proof of general reliability for an approved breathalyzer?	State: statute and rules authorize device use and bar general reliability attacks.	McCune: Vega forbids general reliability attacks; rely on legislative approval.	Reversed; trial court may require reliability proof before admissibility.

Vega v. State, 12 Ohio St.3d 185 (1984) (generally cannot attack reliability of intoxilyzers; legislature governs admissibility)
State v. Miller, 11th Dist. No. 2012-P-0032 (2012) (limits on general reliability attacks; specific attacks allowed)
State v. Carter, 2012-Ohio-5583 (2012) (emphasizes specific challenges over general reliability)
State v. Rouse, 2012-Ohio-5584 (2012) (defendant may challenge test procedure specifics)
State v. Tanner, 15 Ohio St.3d 1 (1984) (allows challenge to accuracy of specific test results; not to general procedure)
Massie v. Massie, 2nd Dist. No. 2007 CA 24, 2008-Ohio-1312 (2008) (Daubert-like constraints on expert testimony; admissibility)