State v. Richardson (Slip Opinion)
150 Ohio St. 3d 554
| Ohio | 2016Background
- Richardson rear-ended a car at a red light; driver observed slurred speech and dropped cards.
- Officer Miniard noted slurred speech, impairment signs, and that Richardson exited the truck awkwardly after failing to park.
- Richardson refused a blood test and was charged with third-degree felony OVI and endangering a child in the vehicle.
- Richardson testified he took hydrocodone per prescription but last took it two days earlier and suffered withdrawal.
- Defense presented Dr. Russell supporting withdrawal; prosecution relied on lay testimony; trial court convicted; Second District vacated; Supreme Court reversed and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is impairment plus ingestion of a drug of abuse enough for OVI without expert link? | State | Richardson | Yes, sufficient evidence under 4511.19(A)(2) |
| Must the link between drug effects and impairment be proven by expert testimony? | State | Richardson | Not required; lay and other evidence can suffice |
| Was certified-conflict proper to address the issue? | State | Richardson | Conflict decertified; question not answered |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (Ohio 1997) (sufficiency standard; distinct from weight of the evidence)
- State v. May, 2014-Ohio-1542 (2d Dist. Montgomery 2014) (prescription drugs require causal link for impairment)
- State v. Stephenson, 2006-Ohio-2563 (4th Dist. Lawrence 2006) (conflict question; sufficiency vs. weight distinction clarified)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1979) (defining sufficiency standard for constitutional review)