State v. Syx
190 Ohio App. 3d 845
Ohio Ct. App.2010Background
- Defendant Syx was arrested for OVI after 2008 incident where Dayton officers observed speeding (80 mph), red-light running, and lane signaling failures on Wayne Avenue.
- Officer Hooper described Syx as flushed, with glossy eyes, slurred speech, odor of alcohol; Syx admitted two drinks.
- Blood drawn, blood test returned 0.11% alcohol; field sobriety tests were suppressed at suppression hearing.
- Trial court sustained suppression of field sobriety test results; blood-test results were admitted, though foundation disputed.
- Syx was convicted of OVI under R.C. 4511.19(A)(1)(a) and the trial court also found him guilty of running a red light and failure to signal; other charges were dismissed or not guilty.
- On appeal, Syx challenged evidentiary rulings including cross-examination limits, blood-test admissibility, expert testimony, and exclusion of an expert on speed; the court remanded after sustaining several assignments.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cross-examination on field sobriety testing | Syx argues Hooper’s training should be explored to challenge testing. | Syx contends cross-exam should include training to undermine testing methods. | First assignment overruled. |
| Admissibility and confrontation of blood-test results | Syx claims the state failed to confront and credibility-test the phlebotomist/toxicologist. | State argues witnesses not necessary since testimony occurred at suppression stage. | Second assignment sustained. |
| Expert testimony about effects of 0.11% BAC | Blood-test results not properly admitted, so Dr. Marinetti should be barred. | If admitted, Marinetti’s testimony would aid jury; not otherwise. | Third assignment sustained. |
| Exclusion of defense expert on speed | Edwards would rebut officers’ speed estimates indicating impairment. | Excessive speed supports OVI; Edwards would impeach credibility. | Fourth assignment sustained. |
| Cumulative errors and fair trial | Cumulative evidentiary errors denied a fair trial. | Fifth assignment moot; however, due to sustained prior errors, judgment reversed and remanded. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Schmitt, 101 Ohio St.3d 79 (2004-Ohio-37) (lay observations of intoxication admissible; testing can be suppressed for foundation)
- State v. Boczar, 113 Ohio St.3d 148 (2007-Ohio-1251) (cross-examining officers about field sobriety standards)
- State v. Edwards, 107 Ohio St.3d 169 (2005-Ohio-6180) (motion to suppress; pretrial challenges not jury questions)
- State v. French, 72 Ohio St.3d 446 (1995-Ohio-6180) (methods compliance; evidence challenges permissible otherwise)
- State v. Crager, 123 Ohio St.3d 1210 (2009-Ohio-4760) (Melendez-Diaz implications on confrontation for test results)
- Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 129 S. Ct. 2527 (2009) (test results and analysts’ testimony are testimonial; confrontation required)