State v. Urrego
| Citation | 41 Ohio App.2d 124,322 N.E.2d 688 |
| Parties | , 70 O.O.2d 132 The STATE of Ohio, Appellee, v. URREGO, Appellant. |
| Decision Date | 14 May 1974 |
| Court | United States Court of Appeals (Ohio) |
Syllabus by the Court
1. The failure of a police officer, upon the request of a person arrested for the offense of driving while under the influence of alcohol in violation of R.C. 4511.19, to administer either a breathalyzer test or a blood test does not deprive such person of any constitutional or statutory right. Specifically, it does not deprive such person of due process of law.
2. The state may not suppress evidence, but it need not gather evidence for the accused.
George Burkhart, Pros. Atty., for appellee.
Richard A. Yoss, Woodsfield, for appellant.
Defendant is appealing his conviction in County Court for operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol, in violation of R.C. 4511.19.
Defendant's first assignment of error states that it was prejudicial error for the trial court to refuse to direct a verdict or judgment of acquittal where the evidence was as consistent with innocence as guilt.
The evidence revealed that defendant was involved in a motor vehicle accident on June 12, 1973, after 2 A.M., on state route 7, approximately three and eight tenths miles south of Clarington. Donald Young, the driver of the other motor vehicle, testified that the accident occurred at approximately 2 A.M. A state highway patrolman testified that the accident occurred at 2:40 A.M. The patrolman, accompanied by an auxiliary patrolman, arrived at the scene of the accident at 3:52 A.M. After the patrolman took measurements, checked the scene of the accident and interviewed the drivers of both vehicles, defendant was taken to the Monroe County Sheriff's Office.
The evidence further revealed that from the time of the accident until the state highway patrolman arrived, defendant was asleep on the hood of his car while the motor was running. Four persons who saw him after the accident testified that, in their opinions, defendant was under the influence of alcohol. They testified that he had the smell of alcohol on his breath, staggered when he walked, and his speech was confused. Defendant admitted drinking two beers before the accident.
We find that the evidence in this case was more than sufficient to support the judgment. Therefore, we overrule defendant's first assignment of error.
Defendant's second assignment of error contends that a defendant in a driving under the influence case is deprived of his rights under the United States and Ohio Constitutions where the state conducts no chemical or coordination tests and where the defendant requests that a chemical test be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Entzel
...People v. Hedrick, 192 Colo. 37, 557 P.2d 378 (1976); Ewing v. State, 300 So.2d 916, 95 A.L.R.3d 701 (Miss.1974); State v. Urrego, 41 Ohio App.2d 124, 322 N.E.2d 688 (1974); State v. Reyna, 92 Idaho 669, 448 P.2d 762 (1968); State v. Barry, 183 Kan. 792, 332 P.2d 549 (1958); Scarborough v. ......
-
State v. James Mills
...the state is not required to gather evidence for the defense, the state may not suppress evidence. Baker, 42 Ohio St.2d at 354; Urrego, 41 Ohio App.2d at 125. An accused has the right to be informed by the prosecutor all potentially exculpatory evidence, and he has the right to examine prop......
- State Op Ohio v. Kevin Lagore
-
Albrecht v. State
...See, e.g., People v. Hedrick, 192 Colo. 37, 557 P.2d 378 (1976); State v. Reyna, 92 Idaho 669, 448 P.2d 762 (1968); State v. Urrego, 41 Ohio App.2d 124, 322 N.E.2d 688 (1974); Annot., 95 A.L.R.3d 710 (1979); 7A Am.Jur.2d Automobiles and Highway Traffic § 305 (1980); cf. South Dakota v. Nevi......