City of Mentor v. Giordano

• Decision Date: 15 March 1967
• Docket Number: No. 40038,40038
• Citation: 9 Ohio St.2d 140,38 O.O.2d 366,224 N.E.2d 343
• Parties: , 38 O.O.2d 366 CITY OF MENTOR, Appellee, v. GIORDANO, Appellant.
• Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Page 140

9 Ohio St.2d 140

224 N.E.2d 343, 38 O.O.2d 366

CITY OF MENTOR, Appellee, v. GIORDANO, Appellant.

No. 40038.

Supreme Court of Ohio.

March 15, 1967.

Syllabus by the Court

1. The guarantee of a jury trial in criminal cases contained in the state and federal Constitutions is not an absolute and unrestricted right in Ohio with respect to misdemeanors, and a statute, ordinance or authorized rule of court may validly condition the right of a jury trial in such a case on a written demand therefor filed with the court a specified number of days before the date actually set for the trial for the offense charged.

2. Penal statutes and ordinances are to be interpreted and applied strictly against the accuser and liberally in favor of the accused, and where the accused is charged under a statute or ordinance with operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor-a misdemeanor-the burden rests upon the prosecution to prove every essential element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt.

3. Although a charge of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor may apply where a stationary vehicle is involved, the evidence must show beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was under the influence of intoxicating liquor while operating the vehicle in that condition.

4. Penal statutes and ordinances must be construed in the light of the mischief they are designed to combat.

5. The primary purpose of statutes and ordinances making it an offense to operate a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor is to protect the users of streets and highways from the hazard of vehicles under the management of persons who have consumed alcoholic beverages to such an extent as to appreciably impair their faculties.

6. Before the results of a Breathalyzer test given an accused are admissible in evidence against him, it is incumbent on the state to show that the instrument was in proper working order and that its manipulator had the qualifications to conduct the test.

7. Where the competent evidence introduced in the trial of one accused of the offense of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor does not attain that high degree of probative force that would enable reasonable minds to conclude that the accused was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, conviction of the offense will be set aside by a reviewing court.

Defendant, appellant herein, a minor in his late teens, was charged by affidavit in the Painesville Municipal Court under Section 205.01 of the Ordinances of the City of Mentor with operating a motor vehicle on private property in the city of Mentor on January 31, 1965, while under the influence of intoxicating liquor-a misdemeanor. Upon defendant's arraignment, the court entered a plea of not guilty for him. After several continuances, the case came on for trial without a jury on July 15, 1965. Certain preliminary motions by counsel for defendant to correct the record and to suppress evidence on constitutional grounds were overruled, as was the demurrer to the affidavit interposed on the date of trial. Also overruled was an oral motion by defendant on the trial date, July 15, for a jury trial. It was the unsuccessful contention of the defendant that his apprehension and the incidents which followed were in violation of Sections 10 and 14, Article I of the Constitution of Ohio, and of the Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States.

The patrolman of the Mentor Police Department who apprehended defendant testified that, pursuant to a complaint by the pastor of a church on the Lake Shore Boulevard in the city of Mentor, he proceeded to the parking lot behind the church in the very early morning and found a parked automobile with the motor running and the lights off. Four persons were inside the vehicle-defendant, a male companion and two young women. According to the patrolman, defendant was sitting in the driver's seat behind the steering wheel. Pursuant to the patrolman's request, defendant produced his driver's license. His breath had an alcoholic odor, and his appearance and behavior indicated to the patrolman that defendant was under the influence of intoxicating liquor. Defendant, without objection, accompanied the patrolman to the Mentor police station. Defendant stated to the patrolman that he had been drinking and had been driving the automobile. Upon defendant's motion, this evidence was excluded.

Over defendant's objection, the court admitted testimony as to the results of a Breathalyzer test given defendant at the police station and as to the manner in which he performed certain physical tests, including those of co-ordination and balance. A captain of the Mentor police force on duty at the police station when defendant entered testified concerning the odor of alcohol on defendant's breach and the faulty manner in which he performed some of the physical tests. He testified further that in his opinion defendant 'was under the influence of alcohol.' The Breathalyzer test given defendant showed '.18 per cent.' Defendant was jailed and then released under a $500 bond.

Defendant's only witness was his male companion, who was with him when he was apprehended. He testified that he, not the defendant, had been driving the automobile prior to parking behind the church, and that while parked the motor and lights were off. Defendant did not testify.

The court found defendant guilty, sentenced him to 15 days in jail, suspending 12 days of the sentence, fined him $100, placed him on probation for one year and deprived him of the right to drive a motor vehicle during that period.

Defendant's appeal on questions of law to the Court of Appeals resulted in an affirmance of the judgment below without written opinion. One judge dissented with a short dissenting opinion.

The cause is now in this court for review and decision on an appeal as of right and the allowance of the motion to require the Court of Appeals to certify the record.

Leo R. Collins, Pros. Atty., for appellee.

John F. Norton, Cleveland, for appellant.

ZIMMERMAN, Judge.

This case involves the alleged commission of a misdemeanor, a misdemeanor being an offense carrying a penalty less than imprisonment in the penitentiary. Section 1.06, Revised Code. First, defendant complains of an infringement of his constitutional rights, but we find no substantial basis for such claim. He voluntarily accompanied the patrolman who apprehended him to the Mentor police station, and he voluntarily took the tests to which he was subjected. No coercion, mistreatment or abuse are asserted. Probably defendant's most insistent complaint is that he was unconstitutionally denied a jury trial. The record shows that defendant by his counsel orally requested a jury trial on the very day of his actual trial-the date last set for such trial.

Under the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and by Section 5, Article I of the Constitution of Ohio, trial by jury in a criminal case is guaranteed. See, also, Section 2945.17, Revised Code. But is such right absolute and unrestricted in all criminal cases?

In Ohio, in cases involving misdemeanors, a statute providing that, before an accused shall be entitled to a jury trial, he must demand the same, is not violative of the constitutional right of trial by jury. Hoffman v. State, 98 Ohio St. 137, 120 N.E. 234, and Holub v. State, 127 Ohio St. 34, 186 N.E. 708. So a statute or authorized rule of court to the effect that a defendant shall not be entitled to a jury trial unless he makes demand therefor in writing within a specified time before trial is valid. 'Such statute and rule merely regulate the method of making the demand; they do not deny a party his right to a jury trial.' Harry Goldberg Co. v. Emerman, 125 Ohio St. 238, 181 N.E. 19, citing the Hoffman case.

In line with such holdings, Section 1901.24, Revised Code, states: 'Any cause in a municipal court, either civil or criminal, shall be tried to the court unless a jury trial is demanded in writing by a party entitled to the same. * * * In any criminal case in which the accused desires a jury trial, a demand for a jury trial must be made by the accused or his attorney. Such demand must be in writing and filed with the clerk of court not less than three days prior to the date set for trial, or on or before the day following receipt of notice of the date set for trial, whichever is later. Failure to demand a jury trial as provided in this section is a complete waiver of the right thereto.' And compare Section 2938.04, Revised Code.

Although in the particular case and under the particular facts, a judgment of conviction in a Municipal Court was set aside, the Court of...