State v. Risner
2019 Ohio 4120
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- Trooper stopped Risner's vehicle on April 6, 2018 after observing a failure to signal; dashcam captured portions of the stop and field sobriety tests.
- Trooper detected alcohol odor, observed bloodshot/glassy eyes, and was told she had two drinks.
- Field sobriety tests: HGN 6/6 (off camera), one‑leg stand 3/4 clues, walk‑and‑turn 2 clues; trooper arrested for OVI.
- At station Risner provided invalid breath samples and declined/was unable to provide urine; charged with OVI, failure to signal, and seatbelt violation.
- Risner filed a suppression motion 73 days after arraignment; trial court denied it as untimely without hearing.
- Video (all segments) was admitted into evidence; defense later raised that an unredacted segment showed a portable breath test (PBT) result. Jury convicted Risner of OVI; she appealed.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Risner's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for OVI | Trooper's observations, admission of drinking, and FST clues suffice to prove impairment | No evidence showed impairment or impaired driving | Evidence sufficient; conviction upheld |
| Manifest weight of the evidence | Jury reasonably credited trooper and video showing poor performance | Medical condition and only a few sips of alcohol rebut impairment | Verdict not against manifest weight; no miscarriage of justice |
| Mistrial for jurors viewing unredacted video (PBT result) | Record contains no proof jury viewed prejudicial segments; no plain error | Unredacted video contained PBT result ("117") and could prejudice jury; court should sua sponte declare mistrial | No plain error shown; no indication jury saw those parts, so no mistrial required |
| Denial of suppression as untimely / ineffective assistance | Discovery (video) was provided earlier; Crim.R.12 timeliness governs; stop lawful for failure to signal, so suppression would not be dispositive | Late discovery prevented timely suppression filing; counsel ineffective for not filing timely motion | Trial court did not abuse discretion denying untimely motion; stop supported by reasonable suspicion; counsel not ineffective |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (1997) (standards for sufficiency and manifest‑weight review)
- State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (1991) (sufficiency review framework)
- State v. Leonard, 104 Ohio St.3d 54 (2004) (sufficiency standard articulated)
- State v. Lowman, 82 Ohio App.3d 831 (1992) (State need not prove a blood‑alcohol threshold; must prove appreciable impairment)
- State v. Bakst, 30 Ohio App.3d 141 (1986) (same principle on impairment proof)
- State v. DeHass, 10 Ohio St.2d 230 (1967) (deference to factfinder on witness credibility)
- State v. Franklin, 62 Ohio St.3d 118 (1991) (mistrial/granting standards)
- State v. Steele, 138 Ohio St.3d 1 (2013) (plain‑error standard in criminal appeals)
- State v. Long, 53 Ohio St.2d 91 (1978) (Crim.R.52(B) plain‑error caution)
- State v. Campbell, 69 Ohio St.3d 38 (1994) (waiver of suppression when Crim.R.12 not timely followed)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (1983) (abuse‑of‑discretion standard)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two‑prong ineffective assistance test)
- State v. Hunter, 131 Ohio St.3d 67 (2011) (rare reversal for evidence weighing heavily against conviction)