State v. Munye, 2015 Ohio 3362

Early morning stop (≈3:00 A.M.) after officer observed Munye change lanes without signaling and make a U-turn in front of a marked cruiser; officer activated lights and stopped the vehicle.
Officer detected a moderate odor of alcohol, observed red/glassy eyes, and perceived somewhat slurred speech; Munye admitted drinking "one or two beers."
Officer administered three field sobriety tests (HGN, walk-and-turn, one-leg stand); HGN results were later suppressed for improper administration, but walk-and-turn and one-leg stand were admitted and indicated impairment.
Munye initially refused the chemical breath test after being read BMV form 2255, later attempted to retract that refusal but the officer had already completed refusal paperwork and the two-hour window for reliable breath testing was a concern.
Trial court denied suppression of observations and FSTs (except HGN), instructed the jury with an approved "refusal" instruction, jury convicted Munye of OVI; court imposed jail suspended in part, community control, fine and costs.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the jury instruction about refusal to take a chemical test was improper and invaded the jury's factfinding	The Maumee-approved refusal instruction is legally correct and may be given; it lets the jury decide whether Munye refused and what weight to give it	The instruction unduly highlighted a single fact, mischaracterized evidence (Munye retracted refusal), and improperly commented on the facts	Instruction was proper (Maumee); court did not invade jury factfinding and allowed jury to determine whether refusal occurred and its significance
Whether the officer had reasonable, articulable suspicion to conduct field sobriety tests absent erratic driving	Stop plus indicators (U-turn at 3:00 A.M., moderate odor, bloodshot/glassy eyes, admission of drinking) provided sufficient indicia of intoxication to justify FSTs	Indicators were insufficient without erratic driving or clear physical impairment prior to tests	Officer had reasonable, articulable suspicion under totality of circumstances; denial of suppression affirmed

Maumee v. Anistik, 69 Ohio St.3d 339 (1994) (approves jury instruction allowing consideration of a defendant's refusal to take a chemical test)
State v. Comen, 50 Ohio St.3d 206 (1990) (trial courts must give relevant and necessary jury instructions)
State v. DeHass, 10 Ohio St.2d 230 (1967) (jury instruction reversal standard; instructions must not prejudice defendant)
State v. Bobo, 37 Ohio St.3d 177 (1988) (reasonable-suspicion analysis measured by totality of circumstances)
In re Brooks, 27 Ohio St.2d 66 (1971) (automatic license suspension not precluded by a post-refusal retraction unless immediate)
State v. Burnside, 100 Ohio St.3d 152 (2003) (standard of appellate review on suppression: accept trial court's factual findings if supported, then de novo legal review)
United States v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411 (1981) (totality-of-the-circumstances test for reasonable suspicion)