State v. BowdenState v. Bowden
Michael J. Trapp for Defendant-Appellant.
BERGERON, Judge.
{¶1} Midway through an OVI checkpoint, a driver throws his car into reverse and begins to back away. Needless to say, this behavior attracts the attention of the state trooper monitoring the сheckpoint, who eventually flags down the errant driver. Based on evidence of drug impairment, the driver is arrested and later convicted of a misdemeanor OVI. On appeal, defendant-apрellant Jonathan Bowden challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his OVI conviction, asserting that the state failed to prove a nexus between his ingestion of a drug of abuse and his imрaired driving. Because we find that the evidence—reviewed in the light most favorable to the state—sufficed to support his conviction, we overrule Mr. Bowden’s sufficiency challenge and affirm the trial сourt’s judgment.
I.
{¶2} Stationed at an OVI checkpoint, Trooper Zachary Sauber observed Mr. Bowden’s car pull halfway into the checkpoint, reverse, and begin backing up. Flagging the car down, Trooper Sauber instructed Mr. Bowden to park, but he continued to operate the vehicle until Trooper Sauber managed to pry open the door. With Mr. Bowden finally parked and the vehicle’s door ajar, Trooper Sauber observed a cloud of smoke (recognizable as marijuana) billowing from inside the car.
{¶3} Trooper Sauber accordingly asked Mr. Bowden to perform a battery of field sobriety tests, starting with the lack of convergence test—which is designed to gauge how well a driver can follow a pen with his eyes. According to Trooper Sauber, this test is used “more commonly when you suspect drug impaired drivers,” and a failure of the subject’s eyes to cross while following the pen suggests impairment. Mr. Bowden’s eyes did not cross.
{¶5} Finally, Trooper Sauber conducted the walk-and-turn test and the one-leg-stand test. During the walk-and-turn, Trooper Sauber observed six of the eight clues of impairment, with Mr. Bowden demonstrating difficulties balancing and an inability to follow instructions. On the one-leg-stand test, Mr. Bowden exhibited four out of the four signs of impairment, including hopping, swaying, raising his arms, аnd placing his foot down.
{¶6} Wrapping up these tests, Trooper Sauber asked Mr. Bowden once more whether he had ingested any drugs or marijuana. At this point, Mr. Bowden admitted that he had taken four painkillеrs (later clarified to be prescription Tylenol) when he should have taken only two. Trooper Sauber also recounted Mr. Bowden acknowledging “that he did feel like he was too impaired tо be driving.” After this concession, Trooper Sauber arrested Mr. Bowden and requested that he provide a urine test, but Mr. Bowden demurred.
{¶7} Both at the checkpoint and later at trial, Mr. Bowden denied smoking marijuana on the night of his arrest, insisting that only the passenger of the car had inhaled that evening. Trooper Sauber, on the other hand, testified that the passenger—when interviewed at the checkpoint—mаintained that both parties had smoked. Mr. Bowden also testified that he had sustained a concussion prior to the incident, which explained the prescription Tylenol earlier in the day. And he disputed that he had ever suggested that he was “too impaired to be driving.”
II.
{¶9} In his sole assignment of error, Mr. Bowden challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his OVI conviction, contending that the state failed to provide sufficient evidence of his impairment. Specifically, Mr. Bowden disputes the existence of any nexus linking the ingestion of marijuana or painkillers to his impairment, which, in his view, dictates reversal.
{¶10} When reviewing a sufficiency of the evidence challenge, we inquire ” ‘whether, after viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution, any rаtional trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt.’ ” State v. Maxwell, 139 Ohio St.3d 12, 2014-Ohio-1019, 9 N.E.3d 930, ¶ 146, quoting State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259, 574 N.E.2d 492 (1991), paragraph two of the syllabus. The sufficiency of evidence to sustаin a verdict presents a question of law. State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 386, 678 N.E.2d 541 (1997). We therefore review a sufficiency of the evidence challenge de novo, construing the evidence in a light most favorable to the prevailing рarty. State v. Jackson, 1st Dist. Hamilton Nos. C-180159 and C-180209, 2020-Ohio-80, ¶ 11 (“we review de novo the court‘s legal conclusion that the state presented sufficient evidence * “).
{¶11} Mr. Bowden was convicted of a misdemeanor OVI under
{¶12} And the state did so here. As to ingestion, Trooper Sauber testified at trial that when he opened Mr. Bowden‘s car door, “marijuana smoke just began rolling out of the vehicle heаvily.” Trooper Sauber noted that he recognized the “odor of burnt marijuana” from his training, and further that he witnessed “ashes all over the console area.” The passenger‘s acknowledgment that bоth of them were partaking further confirmed Trooper Sauber‘s suspicions. The billowing smoke, the distinctive smell, the ashes, and the passenger‘s comments—all viewed in the light most favorable to the state—are sufficient to convince a rational trier of fact that Mr. Bowden ingested marijuana.
{¶13} The state also presented sufficient evidence of Mr. Bowden‘s impairment. Mr. Bowden‘s efforts to evade the OVI checkpoint certainly raised red flags. When Trooper Sauber approached the car and demanded that Mr. Bowden put it in park, Mr. Bowden ignored the instructions, finally parking the car only after Trooper Sauber opened the door. See Richardson at ¶ 18 (citing defendant‘s poor
{¶14} Without much to say about this evidence, Mr. Bowden rests his case on a purported lack of evidence linking his ingestion to his impairment. He correctly notes that, to convict an individual under
{¶15} But the painkillers are not the only drug of abuse on which Mr. Bowden‘s conviction turns. So long as thе state presented sufficient evidence of Mr. Bowden‘s ingestion of and impairment by marijuana, any error in the court‘s reliance upon painkillers would be harmless (assuming, without deciding, the correctness of Mr. Bowden‘s argument). See id. at ¶ 54 (where the state presented “overwhelming
{¶16} The evidence in this case—when read in the light most favorable to the state—is sufficient to show a nexus between Mr. Bowden‘s ingestion of marijuana and his impaired driving. While Trooper Sauber never testified thаt Mr. Bowden‘s impairment definitively stemmed from marijuana, our case law does not demand as much. See Richardson, 150 Ohio St.3d 554, 2016-Ohio-8448, 84 N.E.3d 993, ¶ 18 (finding the officer‘s testimony sufficient to support that defendant‘s ingestion of hydrocodone impaired his driving when “[b]ased on his experience, the officer believed that [the defendant] ‘was under the influence of some type of possibly narcotics’ “). Based on Mr. Bowden‘s driving and his performance on and behavior during the field sobriety tests, Trooper Sauber testified that Mr. Bowden was “appreciably impaired” in a manner consistent with marijuana consumption. Along with the strong circumstantial evidence оf marijuana ingestion chronicled above, this testimony supplies the necessary nexus. See State v. McClain, 2018-Ohio-538, 105 N.E.3d 762 (9th Dist.) (relying on the officer‘s testimony that the defendant‘s “behavior during the field sobriety tests and his performance on them,” and his “glassy eyes and dilated pupils” sufficiently “indicated that [he] was under the influence of drugs,” though the officer never testified as to whether Adderall or marijuana caused defendant‘s impairment).
{¶17} In light of the above analysis, we overrule Mr. Bowden‘s sole assignment of error and affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Judgment affirmed.
Please note: The court has recorded its own entry this date.