State v. Nicholson
2013 Ohio 639
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Nicholson was stopped for an illuminated license plate and arrested for DUI after a breath test showed BAC .111.
- Nicholson moved to suppress the breath-test result and to require proof of reliability of the Intoxilyzer 8000.
- The municipal court granted the suppression, holding the state must prove the test’s reliability before admissibility.
- The state appealed, arguing Vega precludes a general reliability attack and that the director-approved device is presumed reliable.
- The appellate court reversed, holding the state need only allow specific challenges to reliability, and the device is presumed reliable unless a defendant proves unreliability on remand.
- The court remanded for specific challenge proceedings consistent with Vega and the statutory framework.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| May the state be required to prove general reliability of the Intoxilyzer 8000 before admission? | State argues Vega prohibits general reliability attack. | Nicholson argues general reliability must be shown or challenged; not presumed. | Yes, reversed; no general reliability showing required; specific challenge allowed on remand. |
| Does Vega bar a general attack on the device's reliability in suppression, or allow a targeted challenge to Nicholson's test? | State relies on Vega to bar general challenges and admit the result. | Nicholson seeks a targeted, case-specific reliability challenge. | Narrowed application of Vega; allows specific challenge on remand. |
| Is the Intoxilyzer 8000 presumed reliable when approved by the Director of Health under R.C. 4511.19 and R.C. 3701.143? | Device is approved and presumed reliable; no initial burden to prove general reliability. | Defendant can attempt to show unreliability on remand. | Yes, device presumed reliable; defendant bears burden to show unreliability for a specific challenge. |
| What is the trial court's role in admissibility when a certified, approved device is used? | Court may require reliability proof before admitting results. | Court should not require general reliability proof; Daubert not controlling here. | Trial court erred in requiring general reliability proof; decision to suppress reversed. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Vega, 12 Ohio St.3d 185 (1984) (legislative determination of breath-test reliability; general attack prohibited; weight to defense at trial allowed for specific challenges)
- State v. Tanner, 15 Ohio St.3d 1 (1984) (affirms Vega: cannot attack general reliability for per-se offenses; may challenge specific test results)
- State v. Yoder, 66 Ohio St.3d 515 (1993) (director of health discretion in adopting breath-testing devices; defer to agency authority)
- State v. Luke, 2006-Ohio-2306 (2006) (Daubert not required; legislative mandate for admissibility of alcohol tests; focus on reliability issues as threshold)
- State v. Burnside, 100 Ohio St.3d 152 (2003) (establishes mixed law/fact review and gatekeeping for suppression)