State v. Sullivan
102 N.E.3d 86
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- On May 20, 2016 William E. Sullivan crashed his car into a utility pole; officer Michael Cortez arrived, smelled alcohol, observed bloodshot/glassy eyes, slowed responses, unsteady gait, and that Sullivan appeared disoriented about his location.
- Cortez administered an HGN (Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus) field sobriety test; he observed 6/6 HGN clues and arrested Sullivan for OVI. Sullivan refused a portable breath test.
- Sullivan moved to suppress the HGN results, presenting Dr. William Bauer (neurologist) who opined by phone (no exam, no records review) that Sullivan likely had a traumatic brain injury causing the observed signs, rendering HGN unreliable.
- The municipal court denied the suppression motion, admitting the HGN results after finding Cortez had NHTSA-based training and administered the test in substantial compliance; the court found Dr. Bauer’s testimony unpersuasive.
- At trial Cortez testified about his observations and HGN results; the prosecutor’s attempt to elicit background on HGN studies was curtailed by the court; Cortez stated his opinion that the results indicated alcohol/drugs in Sullivan’s system. The jury convicted; Sullivan appealed raising four assignments of error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Sullivan) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Suppression of HGN results — admissibility under R.C. 4511.19(D)(4)(b) | Cortez had NHTSA-based training and administered the HGN in substantial compliance; HGN results are therefore admissible. | HGN should be excluded because Sullivan’s alleged head injury (post-crash) invalidated the test; expert showed HGN unreliable here. | Denied — court found State met statutory foundation and Cortez credible; defense expert was unpersuasive. |
| 2. Denial of Crim.R. 29 motion (sufficiency) | Evidence (accident, odor of alcohol, appearance, disorientation, 6/6 HGN, officer experience) sufficed to prove "under the influence." | State failed to prove Sullivan consumed alcohol or had alcohol in his system; acquittal required. | Denied — viewed in light most favorable to State, a rational trier of fact could find elements proven beyond a reasonable doubt. |
| 3. Admission of testimony referencing HGN research (hearsay/bolstering) | Officer may explain what his observations meant; his opinion that HGN indicates alcohol/drugs was lay opinion based on perception and training. | Prosecutor impermissibly bolstered Cortez by introducing hearsay conclusions from studies. | Overruled — trial court sustained timely objections to study conclusions; no study conclusions were admitted; officer’s opinion admissible under Evid.R.701. |
| 4. Manifest weight of the evidence | State: greater weight of credible evidence (officer testimony and HGN) supports verdict. | Jury disregarded defense expert and lacked evidence that Sullivan consumed alcohol; verdict is a miscarriage of justice. | Overruled — appellate court, as 13th juror, found jury did not clearly lose its way; evidence did not weigh heavily against conviction. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469, 120 N.E.2d 118 (1954) (defines the clear-and-convincing evidence standard)
- State v. Burnside, 100 Ohio St.3d 152, 797 N.E.2d 71 (2003) (appellate review of suppression involves accepting trial court factual findings that are supported by competent, credible evidence)
- Jenks v. Ohio, 61 Ohio St.3d 259, 574 N.E.2d 492 (1991) (standard for sufficiency review: evidence viewed in light most favorable to prosecution)
- State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 678 N.E.2d 541 (1997) (discusses manifest-weight review and the appellate role as a "thirteenth juror")