State v. Zaree
2017 Ohio 9081
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Traffic stop on July 9, 2016 after Deputy Adam Shaw observed appellant Khashayar Zaree travel through an intersection at high speed; Shaw activated lights and stopped the vehicle.
- Shaw observed red, glassy eyes and smelled a strong odor of alcohol; Zaree denied drinking.
- Shaw administered standardized field sobriety tests (HGN, walk-and-turn, one-leg stand); he testified Zaree showed multiple impairment clues on each test.
- Zaree disputed the administration/results of the tests (he wore hearing aids, had a sore/knee, was facing cruiser lights during HGN, and had to ask for repeats); he denied drinking and denied being offered a breath test though he acknowledged signing the BMV-2255 form.
- Jury convicted Zaree of OVI under R.C. 4511.19(A)(2) (prior OVI within 20 years + refusal to submit to chemical test), acquitted him of other charges; municipal court also found a minor traffic control device violation.
- On appeal Zaree argued the OVI conviction was against the manifest weight of the evidence because of contradictory evidence and officer credibility; the Ninth District affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Zaree's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence supports that Zaree was "under the influence" at time of operation | Officer observed objective signs (odor, red/glassy eyes) and FSTs showing impairment; jury could credit officer | FST results unreliable due to hearing impairment, knee condition, lighting, footwear; denied drinking | Affirmed — jury reasonably credited officer; not an exceptional case warranting reversal |
| Whether Zaree was offered a chemical (breath) test | Deputy read and gave BMV-2255, asked Zaree to take breath test; Zaree refused | Zaree denied being offered the test; said he signed form under threat of jail | Affirmed — jury credited officer’s testimony that form was read and test was refused |
| Whether Zaree actually refused the test after being advised of consequences | Officer testified refusal after advisement and signed acknowledgment | Zaree acknowledged signature but denied being offered or asked to take test | Affirmed — credibility resolved for State; conviction under R.C. 4511.19(A)(2) stands |
| Credibility of arresting officer (given his later termination and disciplinary history) | Officer’s disciplinary history does not alone negate credibility; jury can weigh it | Argued officer not credible because of later termination and write-ups | Affirmed — credibility determinations are for the jury; appellate court will not substitute its view |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Otten, 33 Ohio App.3d 339 (9th Dist. 1986) (standard for manifest-weight review)
- State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (1997) (distinguishing sufficiency and weight of the evidence; appellate review as "thirteenth juror")
- Tibbs v. Florida, 457 U.S. 31 (1982) (appellate court’s role when overturning verdict on weight grounds)
- State v. DeHass, 10 Ohio St.2d 230 (1967) (factfinder free to believe all, part, or none of witness testimony)
- State v. Hardy, 28 Ohio St.2d 89 (1971) (definition/instruction on "under the influence")
- State v. Steele, 95 Ohio App. 107 (3d Dist. 1951) (instruction authority cited for "under the influence" definition)