State v. Miller, 2021 Ohio 4472

On August 31, 2019 Brian Miller was arrested for OVI and given a breath test at the station; Ohio regs require a 20‑minute observation period before testing to prevent oral intake.
Miller moved to suppress the breath test results, alleging he had been chewing gum during the 20‑minute observation period.
A scheduled suppression hearing was delayed when the State could not proceed; the parties agreed to a factual stipulation that Miller had been chewing gum and to submit written briefs on the legal effect of that stipulation.
The trial court nevertheless ruled it had no evidence Miller was chewing gum and overruled the motion to suppress; at trial the jury convicted Miller.
On appeal the Third District treated the stipulation as the only factual record for the suppression issue, held the 20‑minute observation requirement was not met, found the breath test inadmissible as a matter of law, and reversed and remanded.
A dissent argued the trial court had reviewed videos and witness testimony (and repeatedly rejected the gum claim) and that the majority improperly treated an unresolved factual dispute as an agreed stipulation.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court erred by accepting a stipulation in lieu of an evidentiary hearing on the suppression motion	State agreed to the stipulation and thus waived any error from lack of a hearing	Miller contends the stipulation was appropriate to put the issue before the court	Court: No error — parties stipulated and waived any hearing error
Whether the breath test should be suppressed where defendant was chewing gum during the mandated 20‑minute observation	State argued there was no evidence presented at the suppression stage that Miller chewed gum	Miller relied on the stipulation that he chewed gum and argued that chewing constitutes oral intake that defeats substantial compliance	Court: Sustained defendant’s suppression claim — chewing gum breached the ODH observation requirement; breath result inadmissible
Whether the trial court’s jury instruction improperly prevented the jury from considering evidence relevant to guilt/weight	State maintained the court’s instruction and evidentiary rulings were proper given the trial court’s factual findings	Miller argued the instruction prevented consideration of competent, credible evidence affecting an essential element and prejudiced his jury trial rights	Court: Moot after suppression reversal; not addressed on merits

Wilson v. Harvey, 164 Ohio App.3d 278 (Ohio Ct. App. 2005) (stipulations waive need for proof on stipulated facts)
Crow v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 159 Ohio App.3d 417 (Ohio Ct. App. 2004) (stipulation waives error from not holding a hearing on the stipulated issue)
State v. Siegel, 138 Ohio App.3d 562 (Ohio Ct. App. 2000) (oral ingestion during 20‑minute observation prevents substantial compliance with breath test regulations)