2019 Ohio 3979
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background:
- Trooper clocked Puryear at 91 mph in a 60 mph zone, pursued him ~1:20, and Puryear finally stopped partially in the roadway on the left shoulder.
- Trooper smelled alcohol in the vehicle, observed Puryear chewing gum, noted red/glossy eyes and slow/low speech, and Puryear admitted to drinking one beer.
- Puryear performed poorly on three field sobriety tests, was arrested, transported, and refused a breathalyzer.
- Charges: OVI under R.C. 4511.19(A)(1)(a) (under the influence), OVI under R.C. 4511.19(A)(2) (prior OVI within 20 years + refusal), and speeding; jury convicted on both OVI counts and speeding.
- On appeal Puryear raised three assignments: (1) prosecutorial misconduct for comments about post-arrest silence, (2) insufficiency of the evidence (undeveloped), and (3) manifest weight challenge to the convictions.
- Akron Municipal Court sentence affirmed by Ninth District Court of Appeals.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Puryear) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of the evidence | City presented evidence on elements: speeding, odor, appearance, admission, failed tests, and refusal—sufficient to convict. | Puryear argued convictions not supported by sufficient evidence but failed to develop the argument on appeal. | Court declined to construct the sufficiency argument for Puryear and overruled the assignment as forfeited/undeveloped. |
| Manifest weight of the evidence | Evidence (speed, unsafe stop, odor, red eyes, slow speech, poor FSTs, admission, refusal) supports that Puryear was impaired. | Puryear argued indicia (slow stop, left-side stop, odor, red eyes) are not necessarily proof of impairment and FSTs were unreliable. | Court held convictions were not against the manifest weight; jury credibility findings stand and this is not an exceptional case warranting reversal. |
| Prosecutorial misconduct (comments on post-arrest silence) | Prosecutor’s rebuttal comments were a fair response to defense counsel’s closing argument and trial testimony; did not violate rights or prejudice outcome. | Puryear argued prosecutor improperly commented on his post-arrest silence, violating Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights and prejudicing the jury. | Court held remarks were fair response to defense argument (Robinson exception); alternatively any error was harmless given overwhelming evidence. |
| Field sobriety testing / NHTSA compliance (forfeiture) | State relied on FST results along with other observations; no suppression motion was filed at trial. | Puryear argued FSTs were administered noncompliantly with NHTSA standards, rendering them unreliable. | Court found Puryear forfeited this claim by not moving to suppress at trial; regardless, FSTs were not necessary given other evidence. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (1997) (standard for reversing on manifest weight: reversal only in exceptional cases)
- State v. Otten, 33 Ohio App.3d 339 (9th Dist. 1986) (framework for manifest weight review: review record, weigh evidence, assess credibility)
- Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610 (1976) (post-arrest silence generally cannot be used against defendant after Miranda warnings)
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) (Miranda warnings and right to remain silent)
- United States v. Robinson, 485 U.S. 25 (1988) (prosecutor may fairly respond to defendant or counsel inviting adverse inferences from silence)
- State v. Diar, 120 Ohio St.3d 460 (2008) (test for prosecutorial misconduct: improper remarks and prejudicial effect on substantial rights)
- State v. DeHass, 10 Ohio St.2d 230 (1967) (jury determines weight and credibility of evidence)