{¶ 2} On the night of August 20, 2004, Officer Harris of the Seven Mile Police Department initiated a traffic stop after observing expired registration tags on appellant's vehicle. Although he noticed that appellant had bloodshot eyes, Harris did not suspect her of being under the influence of alcohol at this time. After appellant exited her car, Harris detected the odor of an alcoholic beverage on appellant. He also testified that appellant's speech was slightly slurred. Harris initiated field sobriety tests after appellant admitted to consuming four or five beers. Following an unsatisfactory attempt, appellant refused to complete the horizontal gaze nystagmus test. Insisting that she could not perform any of these tests sober, appellant refused to take the walk-and-turn and one-leg stand tests. Harris then placed appellant under arrest. Appellant was transported to the police station, where she refused a blood alcohol test.
{¶ 3} Subsequent to these events, appellant was charged with driving while under the influence of alcohol or drugs (second offense) in violation of R.C.
{¶ 4} Assignment of Error #1:
{¶ 5} "THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED PREJUDICIAL ERROR IN ALLOWING OFFICER HARRIS TO TESTIFY THAT APPELLANT WAS UNDER THE INFLUENCE."
{¶ 6} Assignment of Error #2:
{¶ 7} "THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED PREJUDICIAL ERROR IN FINDING THE DEFENDANT/APPELLANT GUILTY OF DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE."
{¶ 8} Appellant questions the sufficiency of the evidence supporting her DUI conviction. She alleges on appeal that the field sobriety test results were inadmissible because the state failed to demonstrate compliance with standardized testing procedures by Officer Harris. Asserting that Harris' opinion that she was under the influence was wrongly based on these inadmissible test results, appellant concludes that there was insufficient evidence to convict her of DUI.
{¶ 9} The review of a claim that a conviction is not supported by sufficient evidence focuses upon whether, as a matter of law, the evidence presented at trial is legally sufficient to sustain a verdict. State v. Thompkins (1997),
{¶ 10} Appellant attacks the admissibility of the field sobriety tests for the first time on appeal. Defense counsel neither filed a motion to suppress the results nor objected to Harris' testimony regarding the tests. Although counsel made a Crim.R. 29 motion for acquittal at the close of Officer Harris' examination at trial, the record reveals no argument against the admissibility of Harris' testimony or the test results themselves. Because this evidence was admitted without objection, we need not address whether the tests were administered in compliance with applicable standards.
{¶ 11} Regardless of a challenge to field sobriety tests, a police officer may testify regarding his observations made during administration of the tests. State v. Schmitt,
{¶ 12} The court did not err in allowing Harris to testify as to his opinion, which was allowable to assist the trier of fact in determining whether appellant was driving while under the influence. See Schmidtt at ¶ 14-15. In addition, appellant's refusal to submit to a blood alcohol test, and her inability to provide an explanation for this refusal, suggests consciousness of guilt and may be taken into consideration by the court. Statev. Snyder (Jan. 9, 1989), Butler App. No. CA88-04-054, at 9, quoting Westerville v. Cunningham (1968),
{¶ 13} We conclude that the foregoing evidence was legally sufficient to sustain appellant's conviction for DUI. Appellant's first and second assignments of error are overruled.
{¶ 14} Judgment affirmed.
Walsh, P.J., and Bressler, J., concur.