Sufficient Evidence for a DUI OVI Conviction

Ohio Revised Code 4511.19 states that “(A)(1) No person shall operate any vehicle, … if, at the time of the operation, any of the following apply: (a) The person is under the influence of alcohol, a drug of abuse, or a combination of them.” This is one of the two DUI charges that most DUI suspects face. One charge concerns having some amount of alcohol, no matter how much or how little, so long as it appreciably impairs the suspect’s ability to drive. This is often called the “Impaired Charge”

The second charge concerns having .08 or above in blood alcohol content, and it makes no difference whether or not your ability to drive is appreciably impaired.

When dealing with an impaired charge, if there was no evidence of erratic driving, defense attorneys make much of this before the court. How can the state prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the suspect was impaired if there was no erratic driving?

Ohio’s Fifth District Court of Appeals recently considered a defendant’s argument that there was insufficient evidence to convict him of drunk driving. The Court of Appeals overruled this objection though. The Court cited tot he following facts:

The officer testified that at 1:51 a.m., he witnessed Appellant turn onto a road without using his turn signal. The offier testified that when he activated his overhead lights the Appellant did not stop, but continued a short distance to pull into a private driveway. The officer then testified that he followed Appellant and pulled in behind Appellant’s vehicle, while his lights were still activated. The officer then testified that Appellant got out of his car and began to walk towards the residence. The officer told the court that he had to instruct Appellant that he needed to come and talk with him. At that time the officer detected the odor of alcohol coming from Appellant and saw that Appellant’s eyes were bloodshot and glassy. Appellant admitted to Trooper Putnam that he had a few beers, the last one being a half-hour before the stop.

In addition to this evidence, the Appellant refused to submit to field sobriety tests. He also refused to submit to a breath test. The Supreme Court of Ohio has held that a defendant’s refusal to submit to a breath test is admissible and probative of intoxication at the time of the refusal. Westerville v. Cunningham (1968), 15 Ohio St.2d 121, 239 N.E.2d 40. Thus, in Ohio’s Fifth District Court of Appeals, there need be no evidence of erratic driving or poor motor skills to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a suspect has consumed enough alcohol to impair his driving.

All you need is a minor traffic violation like a failure to use a turn signal, together with an 1) officer’s perception that the suspect is slow to note that he is being pulled over; 2) typical indicia of consumption of alcohol; 3) admission of drinking; and 4) refusal to test. The case on this is State v. Eckert, 2008 Ohio App. LEXIS 83 (January 8, 2008), Licking Co. App. No. 2007 AP 04 0029.

Complete Guide to Fighting your DUI charge