2012 Ohio 2955
Ohio Ct. App.2012Background
- Appellant Shari Robertson was convicted in Mansfield Municipal Court of driving while intoxicated (R.C. 4511.19(A)(1)(a)) and a marked lanes violation (R.C. 4511.33) after a 2:00 a.m. October 4, 2008 stop by a state trooper.
- Officer observed Robertson wide turn, curbed, nearly struck sign, weaved in lane, and failed to react to lights, prompting pursuit for about a tenth of a mile.
- Officer detected a strong odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, slurred speech, and Robertson admitted consuming 4–5 drinks that evening.
- HGN test yielded six clues; Robertson refused all other field sobriety tests and a breath test at the post; suppression motion overruled.
- At trial, Robertson testified about bar visits and texting while driving; jury convicted on both charges; sentenced to jail, fines, license suspension, and probation; special prosecutor costs were later sought.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was Saia properly qualified as an expert? | Robertson—Saia not qualified yet testified as expert. | Robertson—Saia’s testimony should be treated as expert evidence. | No prejudice; Saia allowed to testify and trial court did not err. |
| Did the state substantially comply with NHSTA standards for HGN and was suppression proper? | Robertson—no substantial compliance; abuse of suppression ruling. | Robertson—HGN test conducted with noncompliance; suppression warranted. | Harmless error; substantial independent evidence supported conviction; overruled. |
| Was the officer's testimony linking HGN results to BAC admissible and was defense expert constrained? | Robertson—officer improperly testified on BAC correlation; expert notes restricted. | Robertson—no improper limitation; testimony within allowed scope. | Admissible; any error harmless given other evidence. |
| Was imposing special prosecutor costs proper? | Robertson—no statutory basis to charge special prosecutor costs as costs. | Robertson—costs were proper under applicable procedures. | Sustained; the special prosecutor fees vacated. |
| Was there sufficient evidence or was the conviction against the manifest weight? | Robertson—insufficient or weighty evidence undermines conviction. | Robertson—ample evidence of impairment and unlawful operation. | Conviction supported; not against weight or sufficiency. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Breeson, 51 Ohio St.3d 123 (1990) (HGN correlation not to be used to prove exact BAC)
- State v. Sage, 31 Ohio St.3d 173 (1987) (trial court discretion on admissibility of evidence)
- State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (1997) (thirteenth juror standard for weight of evidence considerations)
- State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (1991) (sufficiency of the evidence standard)
- State v. Martin, 20 Ohio App.3d 172 (1983) (sufficiency of evidence in appeals)