State v. Wieser, 2018 Ohio 3619

On August 2–3, 2017 Gail M. Wieser was charged in Lima Municipal Court with OVI (R.C. 4511.19(A)(1)(a)) and failure to maintain control (R.C. 4511.202) after a single‑vehicle crash in which her car went over a curb, struck a tree and a stop sign, and came to rest at an intersection.
Responding officers observed slow, slurred speech, lethargic movements, and abnormal pupil size; Wieser told officers she was on Ambien and other medications.
A urine toxicology report (admitted at trial) was positive for Zolpidem (Ambien) and Butalbital; Zolpidem is listed as a Schedule IV controlled substance under R.C. 3719.41.
After the prosecution rested, defense moved for acquittal under Crim.R. 29; the trial judge erroneously announced guilt, apologized, overruled the motion, allowed the defense to proceed (defense presented no evidence), renewed the Crim.R. 29 motion, and the court entered convictions on both counts.
Sentencing: for OVI, five days jail suspended on completion of DIP, 365‑day license suspension, six points, $500 fine; for failure to maintain control, $150 fine. Wieser appealed arguing insufficient evidence, manifest weight, and judicial bias based on the premature guilty announcement.

Issue	State's Argument	Wieser’s Argument	Held
Sufficiency: Was there sufficient evidence that Wieser operated while under the influence of a drug of abuse?	Testimony of three officers describing impairment + positive urine test for Zolpidem (a Schedule IV controlled substance, thus a "drug of abuse") is sufficient.	Prosecution failed to prove Zolpidem is a "drug of abuse" and failed to show the drug caused impairment.	Court: Zolpidem is a Schedule IV controlled substance (legal question), and the officers’ observations plus toxicology suffice to sustain conviction.
Manifest weight: Did the conviction create a miscarriage of justice?	Prosecution evidence was credible and consistent; no conflicting evidence undermining verdict.	Evidence did not establish causation between drug and driving; evidence weak.	Court: Reviewing record, factfinder did not lose its way; conviction not against manifest weight.
Judicial bias / Due process: Did the judge’s premature guilty announcement deny an impartial tribunal?	Error was procedural, the judge apologized, allowed defense to proceed, and no evidence of deep‑seated bias exists; no mistrial requested or contemporaneous objection asserting bias.	Premature finding demonstrated bias and made presenting defense futile, denying due process.	Court: Procedural error alone insufficient to overcome presumption of impartiality; no evidence of bias or prejudice, claim denied.

State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (1997) (distinguishes sufficiency from manifest‑weight review)
State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (1991) (standard for sufficiency review)
State v. Leonard, 104 Ohio St.3d 54 (2004) (application of Jenks standard)
State v. Richardson, 150 Ohio St.3d 554 (2016) (officer observation plus toxicology can support OVI by drug of abuse)
State v. LaMar, 95 Ohio St.3d 181 (2002) (biased judge denies due process)
State ex rel. Pratt v. Weygandt, 164 Ohio St. 463 (1956) (definition of judicial bias/partiality)
In re Disqualification of George, 100 Ohio St.3d 1241 (2003) (presumption judges follow law; appearance of bias must be compelling)
State v. Dean, 127 Ohio St.3d 140 (2010) (opinions formed during proceedings do not constitute bias absent deep‑seated antagonism)
Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540 (1994) (judicial comments during trial usually not sufficient for bias except in extreme circumstances)