State v. Ndiaye, 2020 Ohio 1008

Trooper stopped Ndiaye around 2:04 a.m. after observing weaving and crossing a marked lane; Ndiaye pulled about four feet from the curb and was the sole occupant.
Trooper detected alcohol odor, observed glassy/bloodshot eyes, and noted Ndiaye was not initially compliant with commands; Ndiaye performed multiple standardized-field-sobriety tests and displayed several impairment clues (HGN 6/6, walk‑and‑turn 5/8, one‑leg‑stand 4/4, lack of convergence, failed alphabet).
A records check showed a prior OVI (Dec. 2015); vehicle was towed. In the cruiser trooper offered a voluntary portable breath test (PBT); Ndiaye said he wanted to contact his attorney. At the station trooper offered a urine screen; Ndiaye signed BMV Form 2255 that recorded a refusal (with a handwritten note that he did not refuse).
Ndiaye waived a jury; bench trial resulted in convictions for OVI, OVI refusal with a prior, and driving outside marked lanes; safety‑belt charge dismissed. Court sentenced Ndiaye to jail (180 days, 160 suspended), fines, license suspension, and vehicle immobilization.
Ndiaye appealed, raising: (1) manifest weight challenge; (2) Crim.R. 29/sufficiency challenge based on the trial court’s midtrial comment about not being convinced after the state’s case; and (3) as‑applied constitutional challenge to R.C. 4511.19(A)(2) (test refusal with prior) — which was not raised below.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court erred in denying Crim.R. 29 / sufficiency of the evidence	State: Evidence (stop, observations, FST results, prior OVI, refusal form) was legally sufficient to submit the charges to the trier of fact	Ndiaye: Trial court's pre‑verdict comment that it "was not convinced" after the state's case showed insufficiency and required acquittal under Crim.R. 29	Court: Denial proper. Comment reflected credibility weighing, not a legal finding of insufficiency; reviewing sufficiency standard (Jenks) met.
Whether convictions were against the manifest weight of the evidence	State: Trooper testimony, video, FSTs, and record of prior OVI supported convictions; trial court properly weighed credibility	Ndiaye: Trooper inconsistent with video, FST affected by knee injury and language barrier, and odor could be explained by cologne/club	Court: No. Deference to bench trial credibility findings; Ndiaye's testimony hurt his case; evidence did not weigh heavily against convictions.
Whether R.C. 4511.19(A)(2) is unconstitutional as applied	State: Statute presumptively constitutional; appellee relied on trial record and standard enforcement	Ndiaye: Criminalizing refusal to submit to urine screen (esp. urine v. breath) violated constitutional rights as applied to him	Court: Ndiaye failed to raise as‑applied constitutional challenge below; forfeited except for plain error. Court declined to address on plain‑error grounds and affirmed.

State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (Ohio 1997) (distinguishes sufficiency and manifest‑weight review)
State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (Ohio 1991) (sufficiency standard: view evidence in light most favorable to prosecution)
State v. Treesh, 90 Ohio St.3d 460 (Ohio 2001) (verdict will not be disturbed if reasonable minds could reach it)
State v. Yarbrough, 95 Ohio St.3d 227 (Ohio 2002) (credibility determinations are for the trier of fact; sufficiency review does not assess witness credibility)
State v. Collier, 62 Ohio St.3d 267 (Ohio 1991) (statutes are presumptively constitutional)
State v. Morris, 132 Ohio St.3d 337 (Ohio 2012) (de novo review for legal questions)
State v. Quarterman, 140 Ohio St.3d 464 (Ohio 2014) (failure to raise constitutional challenge at trial forfeits all but plain error)
State v. Martin, 20 Ohio App.3d 172 (1st Dist. 1983) (manifest‑weight standard guidance)
Seasons Coal Co. v. Cleveland, 10 Ohio St.3d 77 (Ohio 1984) (trier of fact best positioned to observe witness demeanor)
Yajnik v. Akron Dep't of Health, 101 Ohio St.3d 106 (Ohio 2004) (distinguishes facial vs as‑applied challenges and need for record)