City of Columbus v. Hayes

Decision Date03 January 1967
Citation222 N.E.2d 829,9 Ohio App.2d 38
Parties, 38 O.O.2d 43 CITY OF COLUMBUS, Appellee, v. HAYES, Appellant.
CourtOhio Court of Appeals

John C. Young, City Atty., Gordon L. Sroufe and J. Larry Lacksen, Columbus, for appellee.

Joseph H. Hans, Columbus, for appellant.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from the Municipal Court of Columbus. Appellant was convicted of operating a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol.

The first assignment of error relates to the trial court's refusal to suppress test results and testimony as to statements of appellant. Reliance is placed on Miranda v. State of Arizona (1966), 384 U.S. 436 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694. In our opinion, the punishment for the offense charged is not now such as to bring this case within constitutional limitations on custodial interrogation. Of course, the denial of the right to counsel, interrogation against the will of the accused, and similar practices are proper factors in determining whether a statement is involuntary and entitled to be excluded on that ground. However, in the present case, we find no error in admitting the evidence.

The second assignment relates to exclusion of questioning as to a presumption contained in the Columbus ordinance. We find no prejudicial error.

The judgment of the Municipal Court will be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

DUFFY, DUFFEY, and TROOP, JJ., concur.

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 cases
  • State v. Gillespie
    • United States
    • New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division
    • 12 Enero 1968
    ...State v. Zucconi, State v. Smith, and People v. Letterio, all supra, need not be here repeated. See also City of Columbus v. Hayes, 9 Ohio App.2d 38, 222 N.E.2d 829, 830 (Ct.App.1967) which, without discussion, strangely held the penalty for drunken driving (which it did not mention) 'not n......
  • State v. Neal
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • 23 Febrero 1972
    ...A.2d 599; State v. Angelo, 251 La. 250, 203 So.2d 710(1); People v. Bliss, 53 Misc.2d 472, 278 N.Y.S.2d 732(6); City of Columbus v. Hayes, 9 Ohio App.2d 38, 222 N.E.2d 829(1); and State v. Zucconi, 93 N.J.Super. 380, 226 A.2d 16(4). A contrary decision is Commonwealth v. Bonser, 215 Pa.Supe......
  • State v. Twitty
    • United States
    • Ohio Court of Appeals
    • 1 Abril 1969
    ...is asserted that all the warnings required by Miranda must therefore apply to such a 'custodial interrogation.' In Columbus v. Hayes (1967), 9 Ohio App.2d 38, 222 N.E.2d 829, this court held that the punishment for the offense of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcoho......
  • Com. v. Bonser
    • United States
    • Pennsylvania Superior Court
    • 13 Noviembre 1969
    ...See State v. Bliss, 238 A.2d 848 (Del.1968); State v. Gillespie, 100 N.J.Super. 71, 241 A.2d 239 (1968); City of Columbus v. Hayes, 9 Ohio App.2d 38, 222 N.E.2d 829 (1967). An examination of those cases reveals a significant distinction between them and the case before us. In the jurisdicti......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT