STATE OF OHIO v. WILLIAM STREBLER
C.A. No. 26405
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
Dated: May 1, 2013
[Cite as State v. Strebler, 2013-Ohio-1775.]
APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT ENTERED IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS COUNTY OF SUMMIT, OHIO CASE No. CR 11 08 2149
HENSAL, Judge.
{¶1} William Strebler appeals his conviction in the Summit County Common Pleas Court for operating a vehicle under the influence of alcohol or drugs. For the following reasons, this Court affirms.
I.
{¶2} On June 10, 2011, Richard Salster and Raymond Motil were in adjacent lanes at the intersection of Waterloo Road and Brown Street in Akron, Ohio when Mr. Strebler drove his car between their trucks, damaging Mr. Motil’s truck. According to the men, when Mr. Strebler got out of his car, he was not wearing any shoes. He was also a little “rowdy,” causing the men to think that he was intoxicated. When Officer Garry Ivey arrived, he learned what had happened from Mr. Salster and Mr. Motil and also their suspicions about Mr. Strebler’s condition. He asked Mr. Strebler to write down how the crash happened, but the statement Mr. Strebler produced was largely incomprehensible and ended with the word “bowflex.” Officer
{¶3} According to Officer Ivey, Mr. Strebler fell asleep in the back of his cruiser while he was waiting to be transported to the police station. He testified that it was unusual for someone to fall asleep shortly after they have been arrested. When they got to the station, Officer Deborah Stalnaker administered a breathalyzer test on Mr. Strebler. The test showed that Mr. Strebler did not have any alcohol in his system. When she asked him if he had taken any drugs or medication, he answered that he was on tramadol and oxycodone to alleviate chronic pain. The officers, therefore, arranged for his blood and urine to be tested. Officer Stalnaker also administered several more sobriety tests and noted many additional signs of impairment.
{¶4} The blood test showed that Mr. Strebler had both medications in his system at the time of the accident. The Grand Jury subsequently indicted him for operating under the influence of drugs or alcohol under
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR II
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT GRANTING DEFENDANT’S CRIMINAL RULE 29 MOTION.
{¶5} Mr. Strebler argues that the trial court should have granted his motion for judgment of acquittal because there was no evidence that he was impaired at the time of the collision. Under
{¶6} Under
In DUI prosecutions, the state is not required to establish that a defendant was actually impaired while driving, but rather, need only show an impaired driving ability. State v. Zentner, 9th Dist. No. 02CA0040, 2003-Ohio-2352, at ¶ 19, citing State v. Holland (Dec. 17, 1999), 11th Dist. No. 98-P-0066. “To prove impaired driving ability, the state can rely on physiological factors (e.g., odor of alcohol, glossy or bloodshot eyes, slurred speech, confused appearance) to demonstrate that a person’s physical and mental ability to drive was impaired.” Holland, [supra], citing State v. Richards (Oct. 15, 1999), 11th Dist. No. 98-P-0069[.] Furthermore, “[v]irtually any lay witness, without special
qualifications, may testify as to whether or not an individual is intoxicated.” Zentner at ¶ 19, quoting State v. DeLong, 5th Dist. No. 02CA35, 2002-Ohio-5289, at ¶ 60.
State v. Strebler, 9th Dist. No. 23003, 2006-Ohio-5711, ¶ 7, quoting State v. Slone, 9th Dist. No. 04CA0103-M, 2005-Ohio-3325, ¶ 9. “While the above reasoning is typically applied to alcohol consumption, * * * it [is] equally applicable to determining whether an individual is under the influence of a drug of abuse.” Id.
{¶7} According to Mr. Strebler, even if he appeared to be impaired following the accident, it was because he hit his head on a window during the collision. He argues that the State did not present any evidence that he was impaired before the accident. He contends that the reason he did not notice the trucks stopped at the intersection was because he had just visited his dying mother and was distracted thinking about her. He notes that, when he realized that he would not be able to stop in time, he successfully maneuvered his car between the two trucks to lessen the effects of the collision. He also argues that, at trial, he was on the exact same medication as he was on the day of the accident and was not impaired at all. He notes that the court, in fact, found that his “demeanor and mode of speech causes the court to conclude that he is a highly articulate and intelligent individual.”
{¶8} A toxicologist testified that, based on the amount of medication that was in Mr. Strebler’s blood, whether it impaired him depended on his tolerance to the drugs. According to the toxicologist, one individual with that level of drugs in his blood might be “completely normal,” while another “would be passed out.” He also noted that whether the two drugs which were present in Mr. Strebler’s system at the time would impair someone would depend on how the drugs interacted with each other in the particular individual.
{¶9} Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the State, we conclude that it presented sufficient evidence for the trial court to find that Mr. Strebler operated a vehicle under
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR I
THE TRIAL COURT’S JUDGMENT IS AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE, IS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE AND IS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE.
{¶10} Mr. Strebler also argues that his conviction for operating under the influence under
{¶11} Mr. Strebler argues that the State failed to demonstrate that any impairment that he experienced was because of the drugs he was taking as opposed to his head injury, lack of sleep, and the anxiety that he had before and following the accident. He testified that the reason
{¶12} In its decision, the trial court explained that, “[g]iven an evaluation of the manner in which [Mr. Strebler] testified and the content of that testimony, the court finds [his] explanations for his condition (namely his alleged inability to write, his lack of sleep, his being distraught, and his suffering of a concussion) to be not credible.” Based on the record that is before this Court, we are unable to say that the trial court clearly lost its way when it found that it was Mr. Strebler’s medication, not other circumstances, that impaired his ability to operate a motor vehicle. In particular, we note that, at the police station, despite telling Officer Stalnaker about injuries that he had suffered many years earlier, Mr. Strebler insisted that he not presently in need of any medical attention. His first assignment of error is overruled.
III.
{¶13} Mr. Strebler’s convictions are supported by sufficient evidence and are not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The judgment of the Summit County Common Pleas Court is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
There were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
We order that a special mandate issue out of this Court, directing the Court of Common Pleas, County of Summit, State of Ohio, to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy of this journal entry shall constitute the mandate, pursuant to
Costs taxed to Appellant.
JENNIFER HENSAL
FOR THE COURT
WHITMORE, J. CONCURS.
BELFANCE, P. J. CONCURRING.
{¶14} I concur. With respect to Mr. Strebler’s second assignment of error, I agree that it is properly overruled. A review of a
APPEARANCES:
THOMAS C. LOEPP, Attorney at Law, for Appellant.
SHERRI BEVAN WALSH, Prosecuting Attorney, and HEAVEN DIMARTINO, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Appellee.