State v. Snider
2017 Ohio 2795
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Christopher Snider was charged with OVI (R.C. 4511.19(A)(1)(a)), OVI refusal, driving under OVI suspension (R.C. 4510.14(A)), and failing to drive within marked lanes (R.C. 4511.33) after a traffic stop.
- Deputy Bungard observed erratic driving (veering, passing vehicles, tire riding the curb) and stopped Snider; Bungard smelled alcohol, observed glassy eyes and shifting mood, and learned Snider was under an OVI-related suspension and had a prior OVI.
- Bungard administered several field sobriety tests (walk-and-turn, attempted one-legged stand, alphabet, basic finger test, HGN); some were attempted but not completed or refused.
- No pretrial motion to suppress the field sobriety tests was filed; after a bench trial Snider was convicted on all counts except the OVI refusal.
- Snider appealed, arguing ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to move to suppress the field sobriety tests (challenging substantial compliance with NHTSA standards), and claimed prejudice because excluded test results would have led to acquittal.
Issues
| Issue | Snider's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel was ineffective for not moving to suppress field sobriety tests (HGN, walk‑and‑turn) | Counsel performed deficiently by not filing suppression motion; had it been filed, noncompliant FSTs (HGN, walk‑and‑turn) would have been excluded and Snider likely acquitted | Even if tests lacked NHTSA compliance, officer’s lay observations from nonscientific FSTs are admissible; many other observations existed (other tests, driving behavior, odor, admissions, license suspension) supporting conviction | No ineffective assistance: Snider failed Strickland prejudice prong because excluding HGN (and even walk‑and‑turn) would not likely have changed the outcome |
| Admissibility of officer observations from FSTs when NHTSA standards not met | N/A (argument focused on suppression) | Officer’s testimony about observations during nonscientific FSTs remains admissible under Evid.R. 701 even if administration deviated from NHTSA protocols | Court reiterated that lay-observer testimony about performance on nonscientific FSTs is admissible; only HGN (a scientific test) would be excluded for noncompliance |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Madrigal, 87 Ohio St.3d 378 (Ohio 2000) (failing to file suppression motion is not per se ineffective assistance)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two‑prong ineffective assistance test: performance and prejudice)
- State v. Mundt, 115 Ohio St.3d 22 (Ohio 2007) (discussing Strickland standard in Ohio context)
- State v. Schmitt, 101 Ohio St.3d 79 (Ohio 2004) (officer’s lay observations of nonscientific FST performance admissible under Evid.R. 701)
- State v. Bradley, 42 Ohio St.3d 136 (Ohio 1989) (prejudice standard: reasonable probability outcome would differ without counsel error)