2013 Annual Convention. Traffic Law Update

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "2013 Annual Convention. Traffic Law Update"

Transcription

1 2013 Annual Convention Traffic Law Update Traffic Law Committee 3.0 General CLE Hours May 8-10, 2013 Cleveland

2 CONTRIBUTORS Kenneth A. Bossin Attorney at Law Cleveland, Ohio Mr. Bossin received his undergraduate degree from the University of Missouri and his JD from Cleveland State University Cleveland-Marshall College of Law. His professional memberships include the Ohio State Bar Association, Cleveland Metropolitan Bar Association, Ohio Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, Cuyahoga County Criminal Defense Lawyers, National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, and National College of DUI Defense. Mr. Bossin served as an acting part-time judge in the Lyndhurst Municipal Court from 1985 to 1999, and in 2004, he authored articles on Law You Can Use for the Ohio State Bar Association. He is a frequent lecturer at traffic and DUI seminars throughout Ohio. In 2005, Mr. Bossin obtained a Certificate of Training as an Instructor for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration DWI Detection and Standardized Field Sobriety Testing (SFST) Program and also obtained a Certificate of Competency in the Operation, Diagnostic Verification, and Calibration for the BAC DataMaster Breath Alcohol Testing Instrument. He has served as a consultant (expert) regarding Field Sobriety Testing in Aggravated Vehicular Homicide and other OVI cases and has testified as an expert on Field Sobriety Testing in Lake County and Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Courts and various municipal courts. Mr. Bossin also served as an instructor in teaching DWI detection and SFSTs in June For additional information, please visit Cleve M. Johnson Attorney at Law Columbus, Ohio Mr. Johnson received his BA from The Ohio State University and his JD from Capital University Law School. His professional memberships include the National College for DUI Defense, Ohio Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, Ohio State Bar Association (Chair, Traffic Law Committee), Columbus Bar Association, Central Ohio Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, Governor s Task Force on Impaired Driving, and Ohio Criminal Sentencing Commission (Traffic Subcommittee). Mr. Johnson has been a criminal defense attorney since 1979 and is a frequent contributor to legal education seminars on topics relating to OVI and traffic law. He frequently testifies before committees of Ohio legislature and is certified to operate, calibrate, and perform diagnostic verification on a DataMaster breath-testing machine. For additional information, please visit Honorable Robert H. Lyons Butler County Area I Court Oxford, Ohio Lyons & Lyons Co. LPA Westchester, Ohio Judge Lyons received his BS from Miami University and his JD from the Northern Kentucky University Salmon P. Chase College of Law. His professional memberships include the Ohio State Bar Association, Butler County Bar Association, Cincinnati Bar Association, Ohio Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, Association of County/Municipal Court Judges, International Judges Association, and Greater Cincinnati Criminal Defense Lawyers Association. Judge Lyons has been the Butler County Area I Court Judge since He is the founder of Lyons & Lyons, and he practices primarily in the area of criminal defense with an emphasis on OVI. Judge Lyons is a certified instructor for National Highway Traffic Safety Administration DWI Detection and Standardized Field Sobriety Testing. For additional information, please visit www. lyonsandlyonslaw.com.

3 Jeffrey C. Meadows Lyons & Lyons Co. LPA West Chester, Ohio Mr. Meadows received his BA from the University of Cincinnati and his JD from the University of Miami School of Law. His professional memberships include the Ohio State Bar Association, Hamilton County Bar Association, Ohio Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, National Association for Criminal Defense Lawyers, National College for DUI Defense, and Greater Cincinnati Criminal Defense Lawyers Association. Mr. Meadows s primary area of practice is OVI. Over the last decade, he has served in the lead role for his firm in aggressive DUI/DWI/OMVI/OVI defense. Mr. Meadows is a frequent speaker on this subject. For more information, please visit Honorable Kenneth R. Spanagel Parma Municipal Court Parma, Ohio Judge Spanagel received his BS from Northwestern University and his JD from Case Western Reserve University School of Law. His professional memberships include the Ohio State Bar Association (Judicial Administration and Legal Reform Committee; Traffic Law Committee), Parma Bar Association (Trustee; CLE Committee), Cleveland Metropolitan Bar Association, Ohio State Bar Foundation (Life Fellow), Association of Municipal/County Court Judges of Ohio (Editorial Board, The Chronicle), Ohio Traffic Rules Review Commission (Multi-Count Uniform Traffic Ticket Subcommittee), and Government Assistance Program (Trained Mediator). Judge Spanagel serves as Presiding and Administrative Judge of the Parma Municipal Court. He received the Ohio State Bar Association s Award of Merit for Parma Bar Association activities and the President s Award from the Association of Municipal/County Court Judges of Ohio. Judge Spanagel is a frequent contributor to CLE programs for numerous organizations, including the Cleveland Metropolitan Bar Association, Parma Bar Association, OSBA CLE, and the Academy of Continuing Legal Education, as well as school programs and the Cleveland Bar Association s People s Law School.

4 Traffic Law Update Session # 607 Chapter 1 Intoxilyzer 8000 Kenneth A. Bossin State of Ohio v. Vega State of Ohio v. Reid (Reid II) Results of Special Testing of the CMI Inc. Intoxilyzer 8000 Evidential Breath Alcohol Testing Device State of Ohio v. Reid State of Ohio v. Collazo State of Ohio v. Yanchar State of Ohio v. Moore State of Ohio v. Muchmore Chapter 2 Important Changes in Commercial Driver s Legislation Cleve M. Johnson Legislation Effective Date Net Effect of the New Law What Happens in Court Controls What Will Happen at the BMV The New Law in a Nutshell Interpreting the New Legislation How Does the BMV Interpret the New Law? The BMV s Position Violates the Double Jeopardy Clause How an OVI Violation Can Legitimately Cause a Disqualification The Constitutional Problem with Typing Disqualification to ALS How to Save Your Client s CDL How to Save Your Client s CDL and His Job Were the Proper ALS Warnings Given? Are New 2255s Required? What If the CDL Section of the 2255 Is Not Completed? No Disqualification in Blood and Urine Cases Two-, Not Three-, Hour Window on CDL Tests Look-Back Period Reversals of Lifetime Disqualifications Are Possible Credit for Court Suspension Refusing the Test Is a Crime for CDL Holders Appeal Time Stay of Disqualification and Procedure The Special Case of CDL School Bus Drivers Appendix In the Matter of Anders v. Ohio Bur. of Motor Vehicles Potential Relevant Issues from Prior CDL Outlines Outline of CDL Changes in HB New Definitions for Serious Traffic Violations Some Consequences of Serious Violations Physical Control and CDLs

5 Chapter 3 Changes in Traffic and Criminal Law: Legislation and Proposed Rules Honorable Kenneth R. Spanagel Changes in Traffic and Criminal Law: Legislation and Proposed Rules PowerPoint Presentation

6 Intoxilyzer 8000: Is It Alive and Well in Ohio? 1 Kenneth A. Bossin Attorney at Law Cleveland, Ohio

7 Page Ohio St.3d 185 (Ohio 1984) 465 N.E.2d 1303 The STATE of Ohio, Appellant, v. VEGA, Appellee. No Supreme Court of Ohio. July 25, 1984 [465 N.E.2d 1304] Pete A. Vega, appellee, was charged on November 9, 1982 with operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol in violation of R.C An intoxilyzer test was administered; appellee tested at.17 of one percent of blood alcohol by weight. Appellee pleaded not guilty. Prior to trial, on April 12, 1983, the state filed a motion in limine to exclude the testimony of appellee s proposed expert witness, Dr. Walter J. Frajola. The trial court delayed its ruling. A jury trial was commenced in the Municipal Court of New Philadelphia, Ohio, on April 12, When appellee called Dr. Frajola as a witness, the trial judge did not permit him to testify. The court in its judgment entry found that * * * Dr. Frajola had no personal knowledge of the particular intoxilyzer instrument utilized in the administration of the breath test to * * * [appellee] * * * and, consequently, Dr. Frajola s testimony would have been relating, generally, to the reliability of the intoxilyzer and as such must be excluded upon the authority of State v. Grimes * * * [ (Dec. 30, 1980), Franklin App. No. 80AP-651, unreported], which this court finds persuasive in its reasoning and the rule of law * * * [which] shall be applied in this jurisdiction. Appellee then proffered Dr. Frajola s testimony. Appellee was subsequently convicted and sentenced accordingly. Appellee filed a notice of appeal on May 18, [465 N.E.2d 1305] In a split decision, the court reversed, holding that an accused may present expert testimony to attack the reliability of intoxilyzers in general. The court stated that * * * R.C (B), while replacing the requirement of Page 186 expert testimony by statutory presumption, does so only insofar as the state is concerned. * * * There is no prohibition (nor can there ever be constitutionally) against the presentation of expert medical testimony on the part of the accused to Intoxilyzer 8000: Is It Alive and Well in Ohio? 1.1

8 show the nonexistence of a nexus between the testing result and the ultimate physical condition of the accused. The court concluded, then, that [t]o the extent that the appellant was prevented from going forward with his evidence on the element of whether or not he was under the influence of alcohol, the state was relieved of its constitutional duty to prove appellant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt on that element of the offense of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol * * *. In dissent, Judge Hoffman reasoned that inasmuch as the proffered testimony was general and speculative in nature and did not speak to the specific test of the specific accused at trial, the testimony was properly excluded because R.C provides for the admission of breath tests if properly administered. He further stated that no constitutional right was destroyed as a result because the accused has no such right to introduce nonrelevant general testimony. The court of appeals, finding its judgment to be in conflict with the judgment of the Court of Appeals for Franklin County in State v. Grimes, supra, and the judgment of the Court of Appeals for Auglaize County in State v. Balderaz (May 25, 1983), No , unreported, certified the record of the case to this court for review and final determination. Stewart C. Piotter, Peninsula, for appellant. Leslie R. Early, New Philadelphia, for appellee. PER CURIAM The issue presented is whether an accused may use expert testimony to attack the general reliability of intoxilyzers as valid, reliable breath testing machines in view of the fact that the General Assembly has legislatively provided for the admission of such tests in R.C if analyzed in accordance with methods approved by the Director of Health. This court, for the reasons that follow, reverses the decision of the court of appeals and holds that an accused is not denied his constitutional right to present a defense nor is the state relieved of its burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt where a trial judge does not permit expert testimony to attack the reliability of intoxilyzers in general. The wide acceptance by courts of alcohol breath tests in drunk driving cases is well-documented. This court so acknowledged, stating in Westerville v. Cunningham (1968), 15 Ohio St.2d 121, 123, 239 N.E.2d 40 [44 O.O.2d 119], as follows: * * * such tests are today generally recognized as being reasonably reliable on the issue of intoxication when conducted with proper equipment and by competent operators. In recent years, the courts have been aided by the enactment of statutes dealing with this matter. In Ohio, the General Assembly has legislatively provided for the admission of various alcohol determinative tests in R.C. 1.2 Traffic Law Update

9 Page [1] This section provided in pertinent part that [i]n any criminal prosecution for a violation of this section * * * the court may admit evidence on the concentration of alcohol in the defendant s blood at the time of the alleged violation as shown by chemical analysis of the defendant s * * * breath * * * withdrawn within two hours of the time of such alleged violation. * * * Such bodily substance shall be analyzed in accordance with methods approved by the director of health, by an individual possessing a valid permit issued by the director of health pursuant to R.C of the Revised Code. [465 N.E.2d 1306] R.C authorizes the Director of Health to determine suitable methods for breath alcohol analysis. By virtue of Ohio Adm.Code (B)(2) the intoxilyzer has been approved as one of several breath testing instruments. [2] In State v. Myers (1971), 26 Ohio St.2d 190, , 271 N.E.2d 245 [55 O.O.2d 447], this court examined the nature of the presumption established by R.C : In * * * [providing that a defendant will be presumed to be under the influence of alcohol if there is a concentration of fifteen hundredths or above of one percent or more by weight in his blood], the General Assembly has expressed its conviction that the relationship between the objective determination by chemical test of the percentage of alcohol by weight in the blood (.15% or more), and its effect on people, is so well scientifically established that it need not be demonstrated by evidence, and may take the place of evidence at trial. The purpose of the presumption is to eliminate the need for expert testimony which would otherwise be necessary to relate the numerical figure representing a percentage of alcohol by weight in the blood as shown by the result of a chemical test, with the common understanding of being under the influence of alcohol. * * * [Citations omitted.] When the test results are in evidence, the evidence that the presumption supplies is the correlation between a scientific fact, the results of the test, and human behavior; that is, that all persons who test.15% or more are under the influence of alcohol. In Myers, the court recognized, at page 199, 271 N.E.2d 245, that this statutory presumption not only acts to supplant expert testimony as to test results, it also * * * bears directly on an issue material to the case, i.e., whether defendant was under the influence of alcohol. * * * The impact the presumption provides, given its real intendment, is that it tends to prove whether defendant was under the influence of alcohol. It must be stressed that while R.C creates the presumption that one is under the influence of alcohol if there is a specific concentration of alcohol by weight in one s blood, such presumption is rebuttable. As Professor Intoxilyzer 8000: Is It Alive and Well in Ohio? 1.3

10 Page 188 McCormick states in his treatise on Evidence (2 Ed. Cleary Ed.1972) 513, Section 209: It is important to remember that none of these tests is conclusive, that it is always open to the opponent to adduce countervailing evidence of his sobriety. Likewise, it is important to remember that the tests are not the sole evidence admissible on either side of the issue. Field sobriety tests, * * * sound motion pictures and videotape recordings, may all supplement the tests in producing a reliable judgment on the issue of intoxication. (Footnotes omitted.) (Emphasis added.) In the instant case, the appellee does not dispute the fact that the General Assembly may delegate to the Director of Health the determination as to the mechanism which would be used for measuring blood alcohol content of an individual. Rather, the appellee disputes that he is bound by the director s determination that the intoxilyzer is generally a reliable, valid, breath testing instrument. The appellee argues that while the initial determination that a certain machine is qualified to analyze a person s breath may be proper, the ultimate issue of guilt or innocence of an accused is a judicial function: the rulemaking power of the Director of Health may never deprive a defendant of the right to present a defense to the charge. The appellee essentially asserts that if he is denied the opportunity to make a general attack upon that determination, he will be denied his constitutional right to present a defense and to have his guilt proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Appellee has misconstrued the impact of the enactment of R.C by the General Assembly. Professor McCormick, in addressing statutes similar to R.C , [465 N.E.2d 1307] has explained as follows at pages 511 and 513: The subjects of standards of proof and testing are now largely controlled by statute[s] * * *. In the process, most of the original questions as to the general reliability of the tests and the relation between blood-alcohol levels and driver impairment have been answered, expressly or impliedly, by the legislatures. Under [such] * * * statutes, the questions of relevancy, and to a large extent of weight, of the evidence, have thus been legislatively resolved. The presumptions have been upheld by the courts * * * and the prescription for test procedures adopted by the state health agency has been taken as acceptance of the general reliability of such procedures in showing blood-alcohol content. (Footnotes omitted.) (Emphasis added.) Appellee s position simply fails to afford the legislative determination that intoxilyzer tests are proper detective devices the respect it deserves. As McCormick so recognized, legislatures, by enacting statutes such as R.C , have legislatively resolved the questions of the reliability and relevancy of intoxilyzer tests. And, as Judge Stephenson stated in State v. Brockway (1981), 2 Ohio App.3d 227, 232, 441 N.E.2d 602: 1.4 Traffic Law Update

11 * * * [The judiciary must recognize] the necessary legislative determination that breath tests, properly conducted, are reliable irrespective that not all experts wholly agree and that the common law foundational evidence Page 189 has, for admissibility, been replaced by statute and rule; and that the legislative delegation was to the Director of Health, not the court, the discretionary authority for adoption of appropriate tests and procedures, including breath test devices. Not only does appellee s position fail to give recognition to the legislative determination, it also misperceives the presumption and the effect of that presumption created by R.C The presumption created by R.C is that the accused was under the influence of alcohol. The effect of the presumption is to eliminate the necessity of proof by the prosecution of the effect of alcohol on the individual when the level is within the range established by the presumption. The statute does not create an absolute presumption, but only a rebuttable one. * * * [The defendant may still,] notwithstanding the presumption, [establish if he can that] he was not under the influence of alcohol at the time of his arrest, or that there was something wrong with the test and the results were erroneous. Erwin, Defense of Drunk Driving Cases (3 Ed.1971) 26-9, Section This presumption does not, contrary to appellee s arguments, change the presumption of innocence to one of guilt. It merely raises the rebuttable presumption that one was under the influence of alcohol. Under the statute, the accused may introduce any other competent evidence bearing upon the question of whether he was under the influence of intoxicating liquor. Rebuttable evidence may include non-technical evidence of sobriety, such as a videotape or testimony by the accused or by witnesses concerning the accused s sobriety and the amount of consumption, as well as technical evidence, such as additional chemical tests and the completion of field sobriety tests. There is no question that the accused may also attack the reliability of the specific testing procedure and the qualifications of the operator. See, e.g., Cincinnati v. Sand (1975), 43 Ohio St.2d 79, 330 N.E.2d 908 [72 O.O.2d 44]. Defense expert testimony as to testing procedures at trial going to weight rather than admissibility is allowed. Accord State v. Brockway, supra, 2 Ohio App.3d at 232, 441 N.E.2d 602. Since the presumption is rebuttable and the defendant may go forward with evidence, the * * * [d]efendant cannot be heard to complain that the provisions of R.C eliminate his presumption of innocence or hamper the presentation of his defense. State v. Myers, supra, 26 Ohio St.2d at 201, 271 N.E.2d 245. The presumption created by the scientific test is thus to be considered by the jury and the court along with the other [465 N.E.2d 1308] evidence as to whether or not the accused was intoxicated. Whether the presumption was overcome by the evidence presented is a question of fact for the jury. Even with the assistance of the presumption, the state must prove every element of the offense charged, including the element of intoxication beyond a reasonable doubt Before the jury may convict. The prosecution must still lay the proper foundation for admission of the intoxilyzer test results. Proper jury instructions are essential and will ensure that the jury is aware of the rebuttable nature of the presumption created by R.C and that the state must still prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Intoxilyzer 8000: Is It Alive and Well in Ohio? 1.5

12 Page 190 For the above-stated reasons, this court holds that in light of R.C , an accused may not make a general attack upon the reliability and validity of the breath testing instrument, and thereby reverses the holding of the court of appeals. Judgment reversed. FRANK D. CELEBREZZE, C.J., and WILLIAM B. BROWN, LOCHER and HOLMES, JJ., concur. SWEENEY, CLIFFORD F. BROWN and JAMES P. CELEBREZZE, JJ., dissent. CLIFFORD F. BROWN, Justice, dissenting. The decision reached by the court today sanctions an unconstitutional exclusion of evidence from a criminal trial. Under the Constitutions of the state of Ohio and the United States all persons accused of crime have the right to present their own evidence including expert testimony. As I do not believe R.C stands for the proposition that no expert testimony may be introduced to rebut the statutory presumption created, I dissent. There is no prohibition against the presentation of expert medical testimony by the accused to show the nonexistence of any nexus between the test results and the physical condition of the accused. See State v. Myers (1971), 26 Ohio St.2d 190, 271 N.E.2d 245 [55 O.O.2d 447]. Even though the Director of Health has approved a specific test, and test machine, pursuant to the legislative authority granted under R.C et seq., the court may independently determine the reliability of the test procedure. The common-law criteria for the admissibility of evidence continue for the very reason that R.C provides, the court may admit evidence on the concentration of alcohol the defendant s blood. * * * Since the legislature has provided the presumption arising from the requisite blood alcohol content test to be rebuttable, no limitation should be placed on a defendant s right to offer evidence to rebut the test result. The rulemaking power of the Director of Health can never deprive a defendant of his constitutional right to present all relevant evidence in his defense to the crime with which he is charged. The admissibility of relevant evidence is a judicial function. The Ohio Constitution has delegated the responsibility for the fashioning of evidentiary rules solely to the Ohio Supreme Court. Section 5(B), Article IV of the Constitution provides in part: (2) The supreme court shall prescribe rules governing practice and procedure in all courts of the state * * *. All laws in conflict with such rules shall be of no further force or effect after such rules have taken effect. 1.6 Traffic Law Update

13 It has been recently noted by the court in Melling v. Stralka (1984), 12 Ohio St.3d 105, 465 N.E.2d 857, * * * that the foregoing constitutional provisions grant plenary rulemaking authority to the Supreme Court, which authority is necessary for a uniform, effective governance of the practice of law in this state. This court in furtherance of the powers granted it by the Constitution Page 191 has enacted the Ohio Rules of Evidence. Pursuant to these rules the courts within this state must make rulings concerning the admissibility of evidence. In the present case, it is clear that while the legislature has created a presumption of reliability concerning the intoxilyzer tests, Evid.R. 401, 402, 702 and 703 mandate the admission of the testimony proffered by defendant s expert witness at trial. [465 N.E.2d 1309] The cases relied upon by the majority relate only to the use and admissibility of machine test results by the state. None of the cases holds a defendant may not make a general attack upon the machine used. In this case, the appellee wished to introduce testimony relating to the indicia of reliability of intoxilyzer Model 4011, the machine used to test his blood-alcohol content. Serious questions have arisen in the past concerning radio interference and its effects on older intoxilyzer models. It was proffered that Dr. Frajola was going to testify as to radio interference, particularly on Model The heart of appellee s defense was the testimony of Dr. Frajola concerning the reliability of the intoxilyzer results. In State v. Brockway (1981), 2 Ohio App.3d 227, 441 N.E.2d 602, the testimonies of both Dr. Frajola and Leonard J. Porter, of the Ohio Department of Health, were admitted concerning the reliability of intoxilyzer Model The issue of relevancy or admissibility of evidence cannot be usurped by the legislature nor delegated by the legislature to the Director of Health. The constitutional principle of separation of powers among the branches of government demands this conclusion. It is the function of the judiciary to rule on the admissibility of relevant evidence. The exclusion of relevant expert testimony solely because of a legislative or administrative presumption is unconstitutional. I would, therefore, affirm the judgment of the court of appeals. SWEENEY and JAMES P. CELEBREZZE, JJ., concur in the foregoing dissenting opinion Notes: [1] This section has since been revised. [2] It is noted that there has been no assertion that there was an abuse of discretion by the Director of Health in promulgating these rules Intoxilyzer 8000: Is It Alive and Well in Ohio? 1.7

14 1.8 Traffic Law Update

15 Intoxilyzer 8000: Is It Alive and Well in Ohio? 1.9

16 1.10 Traffic Law Update

17 Intoxilyzer 8000: Is It Alive and Well in Ohio? 1.11

18 1.12 Traffic Law Update

19 Intoxilyzer 8000: Is It Alive and Well in Ohio? 1.13

20 1.14 Traffic Law Update

21 Intoxilyzer 8000: Is It Alive and Well in Ohio? 1.15

22 1.16 Traffic Law Update

23 Intoxilyzer 8000: Is It Alive and Well in Ohio? 1.17

24 1.18 Traffic Law Update

25 Intoxilyzer 8000: Is It Alive and Well in Ohio? 1.19

26 1.20 Traffic Law Update

27 Intoxilyzer 8000: Is It Alive and Well in Ohio? 1.21

28 1.22 Traffic Law Update

29 Intoxilyzer 8000: Is It Alive and Well in Ohio? 1.23

30 1.24 Traffic Law Update

31 Intoxilyzer 8000: Is It Alive and Well in Ohio? 1.25

32 1.26 Traffic Law Update

33 Intoxilyzer 8000: Is It Alive and Well in Ohio? 1.27

34 1.28 Traffic Law Update

35 Intoxilyzer 8000: Is It Alive and Well in Ohio? 1.29

36 1.30 Traffic Law Update

37 Intoxilyzer 8000: Is It Alive and Well in Ohio? 1.31

38 1.32 Traffic Law Update

39 Intoxilyzer 8000: Is It Alive and Well in Ohio? 1.33

40 1.34 Traffic Law Update

41 Intoxilyzer 8000: Is It Alive and Well in Ohio? 1.35

42 1.36 Traffic Law Update

43 Intoxilyzer 8000: Is It Alive and Well in Ohio? 1.37

44 1.38 Traffic Law Update

45 Intoxilyzer 8000: Is It Alive and Well in Ohio? 1.39

46 1.40 Traffic Law Update

47 Intoxilyzer 8000: Is It Alive and Well in Ohio? 1.41

48 1.42 Traffic Law Update

49 Intoxilyzer 8000: Is It Alive and Well in Ohio? 1.43

50 1.44 Traffic Law Update

51 Intoxilyzer 8000: Is It Alive and Well in Ohio? 1.45

52 1.46 Traffic Law Update

53 2013-Ohio-562 STATE OF OHIO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. HEATHER REID, Defendant-Appellee. No. 12CA3 Court of Appeals of Ohio, Fourth District, Pickaway February 7, 2013 CRIMINAL CASE FROM MUNICIPAL COURT COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT: Gary D. Kenworthy COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE: James R. Kingsley COUNSEL FOR AMICUS CURIAE OHIO ASSOCIATION OF CRIMINAL DEFENSE LAWYERS: D. Timothy Huey and Jessica G. Fallon COUNSEL FOR AMICUS CURIAE STATE OF OHIO: Mike Dewine, Ohio Attorney General, and Matthew J. Donahue, Ohio Assistant Attorney General DECISION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY PER CURIAM. { 1} This is an appeal from a Circleville Municipal Court order to exclude Intoxilyzer 8000 test results from evidence in the trial of Heather Reid, defendant below and appellee herein. Authorities had charged Reid with operating a motor vehicle with a prohibited breath-alcohol concentration in violation of R.C (A)(1)(h). Pursuant to R.C , we granted the State of Ohio, plaintiff below and appellant herein, leave to appeal the trial court s evidentiary ruling. { 2} Appellant assigns the following errors for review: FIRST ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR: THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY GRANTING APPELLEE S MOTION TO SUPPRESS THE RESULTS OF HER INTOXILYZER 8000 TEST AND REQUIRING THE STATE OF OHIO TO PROVE BY WAY OF EXPERT TESTIMONY THAT THIS INSTRUMENT WAS ACCURATE AND RELIABLE EVEN THOUGH IT HAD BEEN APPROVED BY THE DIRECTOR OF HEALTH FOR ALCOHOL BREATH TESTING PURPOSES AND THE APPELLEE S TEST WAS IN ALL RESPECTS ADMINISTERED IN SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE WITH THE RULES AND REGULATIONS PRESCRIBED BY THE DIRECTOR Intoxilyzer 8000: Is It Alive and Well in Ohio? 1.47

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as Cincinnati v. Ilg, Slip Opinion No. 2014-Ohio-4258.

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as Cincinnati v. Ilg, Slip Opinion No. 2014-Ohio-4258. [Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as Cincinnati v. Ilg, Slip Opinion No. 2014-Ohio-4258.] NOTICE This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT [Cite as State v. Mobarak, 2015-Ohio-3007.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT State of Ohio, : Plaintiff-Appellee, : No. 14AP-517 (C.P.C. No. 12CR-5582) v. : (REGULAR CALENDAR) Soleiman

More information

2014 Annual Convention. Traffic Law/OVI Update

2014 Annual Convention. Traffic Law/OVI Update 2014 Annual Convention Traffic Law/OVI Update Traffic Law Committee 1.5 General CLE Hours April 30 May 2, 2014 Columbus Contributors Cleve M. Johnson Attorney at Law Columbus, Ohio Mr. Johnson received

More information

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA KRISTINA R. DOBSON, Petitioner, v. THE HONORABLE CRANE MCCLENNEN, JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF MARICOPA, Respondent

More information

IN THE MISSOURI COURT OF APPEALS WESTERN DISTRICT

IN THE MISSOURI COURT OF APPEALS WESTERN DISTRICT IN THE MISSOURI COURT OF APPEALS WESTERN DISTRICT STATE OF MISSOURI, v. ROBERT E. WHEELER, Respondent, Appellant. WD76448 OPINION FILED: August 19, 2014 Appeal from the Circuit Court of Caldwell County,

More information

IN THE IOWA DISTRICT COURT FOR WOODBURY COUNTY. WRITTEN PLEA OF GUILTY AND WAIVER OF RIGHTS (OWI First Offense)

IN THE IOWA DISTRICT COURT FOR WOODBURY COUNTY. WRITTEN PLEA OF GUILTY AND WAIVER OF RIGHTS (OWI First Offense) IN THE IOWA DISTRICT COURT FOR WOODBURY COUNTY THE STATE OF IOWA, Plaintiff, vs. Defendant. CRIMINAL NO. WRITTEN PLEA OF GUILTY AND WAIVER OF RIGHTS (OWI First Offense) COMES NOW the above-named Defendant

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI NO. 2010-IA-02028-SCT

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI NO. 2010-IA-02028-SCT IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI NO. 2010-IA-02028-SCT RENE C. LEVARIO v. STATE OF MISSISSIPPI DATE OF JUDGMENT: 11/23/2010 TRIAL JUDGE: HON. ROBERT P. KREBS COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED: JACKSON COUNTY

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE KEVIN D. TALLEY, Defendant-Below No. 172, 2003 Appellant, v. Cr. ID No. 0108005719 STATE OF DELAWARE, Court Below: Superior Court of the State of Delaware,

More information

Court of Appeals of Ohio

Court of Appeals of Ohio [Cite as Hignite v. Glick, Layman & Assoc., Inc., 2011-Ohio-1698.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 95782 DIANNE HIGNITE PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT

More information

Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals

Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals RENDERED: MARCH 14, 2008; 2:00 P.M. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals NO. 2007-CA-001304-MR DONALD T. CHRISTY APPELLANT v. APPEAL FROM MASON CIRCUIT COURT HONORABLE STOCKTON

More information

COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT. For defendant-appellant: : : DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT OF DECISION : MAY 25, 2006

COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT. For defendant-appellant: : : DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT OF DECISION : MAY 25, 2006 [Cite as State v. Ellington, 2006-Ohio-2595.] COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA No. 86803 STATE OF OHIO JOURNAL ENTRY Plaintiff-Appellee AND vs. OPINION DAVID ELLINGTON, JR.

More information

Offering Defense Witnesses to New York Grand Juries. Your client has just been held for the action of the Grand Jury. Although you

Offering Defense Witnesses to New York Grand Juries. Your client has just been held for the action of the Grand Jury. Although you Offering Defense Witnesses to New York Grand Juries By: Mark M. Baker 1 Your client has just been held for the action of the Grand Jury. Although you have a valid defense, you do not want your client to

More information

**************************************** I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND.

**************************************** I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND. STATE OF IDAHO County of KOOTENAI ss FILED AT O clock M CLERK, DISTRICT COURT Deputy IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF IDAHO, vs. STATE OF IDAHO IN AND FOR THE COUNTY

More information

STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, ROY MATTHEW SOVINE, Appellant. No. 1 CA-CR 14-0094

STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, ROY MATTHEW SOVINE, Appellant. No. 1 CA-CR 14-0094 NOTICE: NOT FOR PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED. IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION

More information

2012 Annual Convention. Intoxilyzer 8000

2012 Annual Convention. Intoxilyzer 8000 2012 Annual Convention Intoxilyzer 8000 Traffic Law Committee 3.0 General CLE Hours May 2-4, 2012 Cincinnati CONTRIBUTORS Honorable William A. Grim Athens County Municipal Court Athens, Ohio Judge Grim

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR MIAMI COUNTY, OHIO. v. : T.C. NO. 2007 TRC 2065

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR MIAMI COUNTY, OHIO. v. : T.C. NO. 2007 TRC 2065 [Cite as State v. Swartz, 2009-Ohio-902.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR MIAMI COUNTY, OHIO STATE OF OHIO : Plaintiff-Appellant : C.A. CASE NO. 2008 CA 31 v. : T.C. NO. 2007 TRC 2065 ROBERT W. SWARTZ : (Criminal

More information

Court of Appeals of Ohio

Court of Appeals of Ohio [Cite as In re H.P., 2015-Ohio-1309.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 101781 IN RE: H.P., ET AL. Minor Children [Appeal By N.P., Mother]

More information

No. 108,809 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, SHANE RAIKES, Appellant. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT

No. 108,809 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, SHANE RAIKES, Appellant. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT 1. No. 108,809 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, v. SHANE RAIKES, Appellant. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT Generally, issues not raised before the district court, even constitutional

More information

VIRGINIA DUI FACTSHEET

VIRGINIA DUI FACTSHEET VIRGINIA DUI FACTSHEET BOSE LAW FIRM, PLLC Former Police & Investigators Springfield Offices: 6354 Rolling Mill Place, Suite 102 Springfield, Virginia 22152 Telephone: 703.926.3900 Facsimile: 800.927.6038

More information

STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF WAYNE )

STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF WAYNE ) [Cite as State v. Moneypenny, 2004-Ohio-4060.] STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS )ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF WAYNE ) STATE OF OHIO Appellee v. MICHAEL MONEYPENNY, SR. Appellant C.A. No.

More information

Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals

Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals RENDERED: JULY 8, 2011; 10:00 A.M. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals NO. 2009-CA-000873-DG COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY APPELLANT ON DISCRETIONARY REVIEW FROM CHRISTIAN CIRCUIT

More information

Court of Appeals of Ohio

Court of Appeals of Ohio [Cite as Cleveland v. Tisdale, 2015-Ohio-1017.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 101376 CITY OF CLEVELAND PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE vs. VENIS

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT VAN WERT COUNTY PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, CASE NO. 15-08-05

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT VAN WERT COUNTY PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, CASE NO. 15-08-05 [Cite as Carter-Jones Lumber Co. v. Jewell, 2008-Ohio-4782.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT VAN WERT COUNTY THE CARTER-JONES LUMBER CO., dba CARTER LUMBER CO., PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, CASE

More information

Court of Appeals of Ohio

Court of Appeals of Ohio [Cite as State v. Quarterman, 2014-Ohio-3925.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 101064 STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE vs. ALLEN QUARTERMAN

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO. Docket No. 40135 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO. Docket No. 40135 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO Docket No. 40135 STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. JUAN L. JUAREZ, Defendant-Appellant. 2013 Opinion No. 60 Filed: November 12, 2013 Stephen W. Kenyon,

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County. Cause No.

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County. Cause No. IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. CHRISTOPHER LEROY GONZALES, Appellant. 1 CA-CR 02-0971 DEPARTMENT D O P I N I O N Filed 12-2-03 Appeal from the Superior

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION TWO ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Appellant, Appellee. APPEAL FROM THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PIMA COUNTY

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION TWO ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Appellant, Appellee. APPEAL FROM THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PIMA COUNTY IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION TWO FILED BY CLERK JAN 31 2013 COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO THE STATE OF ARIZONA, v. SCOTT ALAN COLVIN, Appellant, Appellee. 2 CA-CR 2012-0099 DEPARTMENT

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT, STATE OF WYOMING 2015 WY 108

IN THE SUPREME COURT, STATE OF WYOMING 2015 WY 108 IN THE SUPREME COURT, STATE OF WYOMING 2015 WY 108 APRIL TERM, A.D. 2015 August 17, 2015 CHESTER LOYDE BIRD, Appellant (Defendant), v. S-15-0059 THE STATE OF WYOMING, Appellee (Plaintiff). Representing

More information

Court of Appeals of Ohio

Court of Appeals of Ohio [Cite as State v. Quarterman, 2014-Ohio-5796.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 101064 STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE vs. ALLEN QUARTERMAN

More information

42 4 1301. Driving under the influence driving while impaired driving with excessive alcoholic content definitions penalties.

42 4 1301. Driving under the influence driving while impaired driving with excessive alcoholic content definitions penalties. 42 4 1301. Driving under the influence driving while impaired driving with excessive alcoholic content definitions penalties. (1) (a) It is a misdemeanor for any person who is under the influence of alcohol

More information

GOPY7. for DUI with property damage, and one for driving with a. two for driving under the. No. 86,019 STATE OF FLORIDA, Petitioner,

GOPY7. for DUI with property damage, and one for driving with a. two for driving under the. No. 86,019 STATE OF FLORIDA, Petitioner, No. 86,019 GOPY7 STATE OF FLORIDA, Petitioner, vs. WILLIAM R. WOODRUFF, Respondent. [May 16, 19961 GRIMES, C.J. We have for review State v. WoodrUf f, 654 So. 2d 585 (Fla. 3d DCA 19951, which expressly

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT D E C I S I O N. Rendered on December 28, 2012

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT D E C I S I O N. Rendered on December 28, 2012 [Cite as City of Columbus, Div. of Taxation v. Moses, 2012-Ohio-6199.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT City of Columbus, Division of Taxation, : Plaintiff-Appellee, : No. 12AP-266

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO ELAINE WILLIAMS and GEORGE W. REYNOLDS, vs. Plaintiffs-Appellants, STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee,

More information

Court of Appeals of Ohio

Court of Appeals of Ohio [Cite as N. Royalton v. Turkovich, 2013-Ohio-4701.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 99448 CITY OF NORTH ROYALTON PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE vs.

More information

STATE OF ARIZONA ex rel. WILLIAM G. MONTGOMERY, Maricopa County Attorney, Petitioner,

STATE OF ARIZONA ex rel. WILLIAM G. MONTGOMERY, Maricopa County Attorney, Petitioner, IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION ONE STATE OF ARIZONA ex rel. WILLIAM G. MONTGOMERY, Maricopa County Attorney, Petitioner, v. THE HONORABLE PHILIP ROGERS, Pro Tem Justice of the Peace of the SOUTH

More information

Administrative License Suspension, Issues Warranting a Termination : A Quick Guide To Regaining Your Driver s License After a DUI Arrest

Administrative License Suspension, Issues Warranting a Termination : A Quick Guide To Regaining Your Driver s License After a DUI Arrest Administrative License Suspension, Issues Warranting a Termination : A Quick Guide To Regaining Your Driver s License After a DUI Arrest *with relevant statutes and case law* Your driver s license is suspended

More information

[Cite as Rogers v. Dayton, 118 Ohio St.3d 299, 2008-Ohio-2336.]

[Cite as Rogers v. Dayton, 118 Ohio St.3d 299, 2008-Ohio-2336.] [Cite as Rogers v. Dayton, 118 Ohio St.3d 299, 2008-Ohio-2336.] ROGERS v. CITY OF DAYTON ET AL., APPELLEES; STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE CO., APPELLANT. [Cite as Rogers v. Dayton, 118 Ohio St.3d

More information

Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals

Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals RENDERED: AUGUST 7, 2009; 10:00 A.M. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals NO. 2008-CA-001465-MR LAMONT ROBERTS APPELLANT APPEAL FROM JEFFERSON CIRCUIT COURT v. HONORABLE MARTIN

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI NO. 2007-CT-00443-SCT ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI NO. 2007-CT-00443-SCT ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI MARY REED EVANS v. STATE OF MISSISSIPPI IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI NO. 2007-CT-00443-SCT ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI DATE OF JUDGMENT: 02/20/2007 TRIAL JUDGE: HON. THOMAS J. GARDNER, III COURT FROM

More information

THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLANT,

THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLANT, [Cite as State v. Brown, 142 Ohio St.3d 92, 2015-Ohio-486.] THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLANT, v. BROWN, APPELLEE. THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLANT, v. SHIPLEY, APPELLEE. THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLANT, v. MCCLOUDE,

More information

Court of Appeals of Ohio

Court of Appeals of Ohio [Cite as State v. Cooper, 2015-Ohio-4505.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 103066 STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE vs. MARIO COOPER DEFENDANT-APPELLANT

More information

2013 PA Super 281. Appellant No. 1967 WDA 2012

2013 PA Super 281. Appellant No. 1967 WDA 2012 2013 PA Super 281 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA v. JASON C. BARR Appellant No. 1967 WDA 2012 Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence November 14, 2012 In the

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO STATE OF OHIO, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. TIMOTHY INGRAM, Defendant-Appellant. APPEAL NO. C-100440 TRIAL NO. B-0906001 JUDGMENT

More information

Court of Appeals of Ohio

Court of Appeals of Ohio [Cite as Rutledge v. Ohio Dept. of Ins., 2006-Ohio-5013.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 87372 DARWIN C. RUTLEDGE PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT

More information

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE Assigned on Briefs May 24, 2011

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE Assigned on Briefs May 24, 2011 IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE Assigned on Briefs May 24, 2011 STATE OF TENNESSEE v. SHAWN DALE OWNBY Direct Appeal from the Circuit Court for Sevier County No. 14548-III Rex

More information

Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the

Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the ****************************************************** The officially released date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO WARREN COUNTY. : O P I N I O N - vs - 10/21/2013 :

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO WARREN COUNTY. : O P I N I O N - vs - 10/21/2013 : [Cite as State v. McCoy, 2013-Ohio-4647.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO WARREN COUNTY STATE OF OHIO, : Plaintiff-Appellee, : CASE NO. CA2013-04-033 : O P I N I O N - vs - 10/21/2013

More information

[Cite as Atlanta Mtge. & Invest. Corp. v. Sayers, 2002- Ohio-844.] COURT OF APPEALS ASHTABULA COUNTY, OHIO J U D G E S

[Cite as Atlanta Mtge. & Invest. Corp. v. Sayers, 2002- Ohio-844.] COURT OF APPEALS ASHTABULA COUNTY, OHIO J U D G E S [Cite as Atlanta Mtge. & Invest. Corp. v. Sayers, 2002- Ohio-844.] COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH DISTRICT ASHTABULA COUNTY, OHIO J U D G E S ATLANTIC MORTGAGE & INVESTMENT CORPORATION, - vs - Plaintiff-Appellant,

More information

STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF SUMMIT ) DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY

STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF SUMMIT ) DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY [Cite as Uhl v. McKoski, 2014-Ohio-479.] STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS )ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF SUMMIT ) VICKIE L. UHL C.A. No. 27066 Appellant v. JOHN MCKOSKI, et al. Appellees

More information

NO. COA12-641 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS. Filed: 15 January 2013. v. Forsyth County No. 10 CRS 057199 KELVIN DEON WILSON

NO. COA12-641 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS. Filed: 15 January 2013. v. Forsyth County No. 10 CRS 057199 KELVIN DEON WILSON NO. COA12-641 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS Filed: 15 January 2013 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. Forsyth County No. 10 CRS 057199 KELVIN DEON WILSON 1. Appeal and Error notice of appeal timeliness between

More information

Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals

Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals RENDERED: JANUARY 15, 2010; 10:00 A.M. TO BE PUBLISHED Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals NO. 2008-CA-000763-MR COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY APPELLANT APPEAL FROM JEFFERSON CIRCUIT COURT v. HONORABLE

More information

CITY OF CLEVELAND LABORERS INTERNATIONAL UNION LOCAL 1099

CITY OF CLEVELAND LABORERS INTERNATIONAL UNION LOCAL 1099 [Cite as Cleveland v. Laborers Internatl. Union Local 1099, 2009-Ohio-6313.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 92983 CITY OF CLEVELAND

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION TWO

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION TWO NOTICE: THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES. See Ariz. R. Supreme Court 111(c); ARCAP 28(c); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24 IN THE COURT

More information

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned on Briefs June 19, 2002

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned on Briefs June 19, 2002 IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned on Briefs June 19, 2002 STATE OF TENNESSEE v. DERRICK S. CHANEY Direct Appeal from the Circuit Court for Williamson County No. II-22-201

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. : Case No. DISCRETIONARY REVIEW OF DECISION OF THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. : Case No. DISCRETIONARY REVIEW OF DECISION OF THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA JAMES C. BABER, Petitioner, vs. STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondent. : : : Case No. : : : 96,010 DISCRETIONARY REVIEW OF DECISION OF THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA FOURTH

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE NOTICE: THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES. See Ariz. R. Supreme Court 111(c); ARCAP 28(c); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24 IN THE COURT

More information

Court of Appeals of Ohio

Court of Appeals of Ohio [Cite as Bartlett v. Redford, 2012-Ohio-2775.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 97606 DIANE BARTLETT PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT vs. LANA REDFORD,

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA. No. 13-1967 Filed February 11, 2015. Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Cynthia Moisan,

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA. No. 13-1967 Filed February 11, 2015. Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Cynthia Moisan, STATE OF IOWA, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA No. 13-1967 Filed February 11, 2015 JOHN B. DEVORE JR., Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County,

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT. Appellant-Appellant, : No. 13AP-622 v. : (C.P.C. No. 13CVF-1688)

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT. Appellant-Appellant, : No. 13AP-622 v. : (C.P.C. No. 13CVF-1688) [Cite as Campus Pitt Stop, L.L.C., v. Ohio Liquor Control Comm., 2014-Ohio-227.] Campus Pitt Stop, L.L.C., : IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT Appellant-Appellant, : No. 13AP-622

More information

COURT OF APPEALS EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO, TEXAS O P I N I O N

COURT OF APPEALS EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO, TEXAS O P I N I O N COURT OF APPEALS EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO, TEXAS THE STATE OF TEXAS, v. JAVIER TERRAZAS, Appellant, Appellee. No. 08-12-00095-CR Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 7 of El Paso County, Texas

More information

GLOSSARY OF SELECTED LEGAL TERMS

GLOSSARY OF SELECTED LEGAL TERMS GLOSSARY OF SELECTED LEGAL TERMS Sources: US Courts : http://www.uscourts.gov/library/glossary.html New York State Unified Court System: http://www.nycourts.gov/lawlibraries/glossary.shtml Acquittal A

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA. No. 14-0420 Filed May 20, 2015. Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Woodbury County, Jeffrey A.

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA. No. 14-0420 Filed May 20, 2015. Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Woodbury County, Jeffrey A. CHARLES EDWARD DAVIS, Applicant-Appellant, vs. IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA No. 14-0420 Filed May 20, 2015 STATE OF IOWA, Respondent-Appellee. Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Woodbury County,

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO. Docket No. 40618 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO. Docket No. 40618 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO Docket No. 40618 LARRY DEAN CORWIN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. STATE OF IDAHO, Respondent. 2014 Unpublished Opinion No. 386 Filed: February 20, 2014 Stephen

More information

No. 110,315 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. KANSAS DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL DIVISION, Appellee.

No. 110,315 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. KANSAS DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL DIVISION, Appellee. No. 110,315 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS KITE'S BAR & GRILL, INC., d/b/a KITE'S GRILLE & BAR, Appellant, v. KANSAS DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL DIVISION, Appellee.

More information

No. 102,751 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, KRISTINA I. BISHOP, Appellant. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT

No. 102,751 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, KRISTINA I. BISHOP, Appellant. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT No. 102,751 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, v. KRISTINA I. BISHOP, Appellant. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT 1. the State. A criminal diversion agreement is essentially

More information

Chapter 813. Driving Under the Influence of Intoxicants 2013 EDITION. Title 59 Page 307 (2013 Edition)

Chapter 813. Driving Under the Influence of Intoxicants 2013 EDITION. Title 59 Page 307 (2013 Edition) Chapter 813 2013 EDITION Driving Under the Influence of Intoxicants GENERAL PROVISIONS 813.010 Driving under the influence of intoxicants; penalty 813.011 Felony driving under the influence of intoxicants;

More information

OPERATING UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF INTOXICATING LIQUOR. The defendant is charged with operating a motor vehicle while under

OPERATING UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF INTOXICATING LIQUOR. The defendant is charged with operating a motor vehicle while under Page 1 Instruction 5.310 The defendant is charged with operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor (in the same complaint which charges the defendant with operating a motor

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA FOR PUBLICATION ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT: ROBERT M. OAKLEY DANIEL K. DILLEY Dilley & Oakley, P.C. Carmel, Indiana ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE: GREGORY F. ZOELLER Attorney General of Indiana HENRY A. FLORES,

More information

STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF SUMMIT )

STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF SUMMIT ) [Cite as Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v. Dvorak, 2014-Ohio-4652.] STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS )ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF SUMMIT ) DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, as Trustee

More information

v. CASE NO.: 2007-CA-13354-O Writ No.: 07-60 STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAY SAFETY & MOTOR VEHICLES, DIVISION OF DRIVER LICENSES,

v. CASE NO.: 2007-CA-13354-O Writ No.: 07-60 STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAY SAFETY & MOTOR VEHICLES, DIVISION OF DRIVER LICENSES, IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA STEPHEN SMITH, Petitioner, v. CASE NO.: 2007-CA-13354-O Writ No.: 07-60 STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAY SAFETY

More information

FINAL ORDER REVERSING TRIAL COURT. Appellant, Joseph Pabon (herein Appellant ), appeals the Orange County Court s

FINAL ORDER REVERSING TRIAL COURT. Appellant, Joseph Pabon (herein Appellant ), appeals the Orange County Court s IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA APPELLATE CASE NO: 2011-AP-32 LOWER COURT CASE NO: 48-2010-MM-12557 JOSEPH PABON, vs. Appellant, STATE OF FLORIDA,

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE EDWIN SCARBOROUGH, Defendant Below- Appellant, v. STATE OF DELAWARE, Plaintiff Below- Appellee. No. 38, 2014 Court Below Superior Court of the State of Delaware,

More information

STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT 07-425

STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT 07-425 STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT 07-425 STATE OF LOUISIANA VERSUS RITA SENSAT ********** APPEAL FROM THE FOURTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH OF CALCASIEU, NO. 18,062-06 HONORABLE

More information

SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA En Banc

SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA En Banc SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA En Banc STATE OF ARIZONA, ) Arizona Supreme Court ) No. CR-08-0292-PR Appellee, ) ) Court of Appeals v. ) Division One ) No. 1 CA-CR 07-0696 JESUS VALVERDE, JR., ) ) Maricopa County

More information

2014 IL App (2d) 130390-U No. 2-13-0390 Order filed December 29, 20140 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS SECOND DISTRICT

2014 IL App (2d) 130390-U No. 2-13-0390 Order filed December 29, 20140 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS SECOND DISTRICT No. 2-13-0390 Order filed December 29, 20140 NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule

More information

N.W.2d. Petition for further review from the Court of Appeals,

N.W.2d. Petition for further review from the Court of Appeals, 88 285 NEBRASKA REPORTS Neb. Ct. R. 3-310(P) and 3-323(B) of the disciplinary rules within 60 days after an order imposing costs and expenses, if any, is entered by this court. Judgment of suspension.

More information

Court of Appeals of Ohio

Court of Appeals of Ohio [Cite as In re A.G., 2014-Ohio-2776.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION Nos. 100783 and 100912 IN RE: A.G. A-G. A Minor Child [Appeal By C.

More information

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA v. JOSHUA ALLEN KURTZ Appellant No. 1727 MDA 2014 Appeal from the

More information

NO. COA11-480 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS. Filed: 7 February 2012. 1. Motor Vehicles driving while impaired sufficient evidence

NO. COA11-480 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS. Filed: 7 February 2012. 1. Motor Vehicles driving while impaired sufficient evidence NO. COA11-480 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS Filed: 7 February 2012 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. Union County No. 10 CRS 738 DOUGLAS ELMER REEVES 1. Motor Vehicles driving while impaired sufficient evidence

More information

This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. 480A.08, subd. 3 (2012).

This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. 480A.08, subd. 3 (2012). This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. 480A.08, subd. 3 (2012). STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS A13-1698 Brian Jeffrey Serber, petitioner, Respondent,

More information

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA COUNSEL: THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Petitioner/Appellant, v. JOSEPH COOPERMAN, Respondent/Appellee. No. CV-12-0319-PR Filed August 5, 2013 Special Action from the

More information

This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. 480A.08, subd. 3 (2012).

This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. 480A.08, subd. 3 (2012). This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. 480A.08, subd. 3 (2012). STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS A13-2263 State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Greer

More information

[Cite as Maynard v. Eaton Corp., 119 Ohio St.3d 443, 2008-Ohio-4542.]

[Cite as Maynard v. Eaton Corp., 119 Ohio St.3d 443, 2008-Ohio-4542.] [Cite as Maynard v. Eaton Corp., 119 Ohio St.3d 443, 2008-Ohio-4542.] MAYNARD, APPELLEE, v. EATON CORPORATION, APPELLANT. [Cite as Maynard v. Eaton Corp., 119 Ohio St.3d 443, 2008-Ohio-4542.] Judgments

More information

STATE OF ARIZONA ex rel. WILLIAM G. MONTGOMERY, Maricopa County Attorney, Petitioner/Appellee,

STATE OF ARIZONA ex rel. WILLIAM G. MONTGOMERY, Maricopa County Attorney, Petitioner/Appellee, IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION ONE STATE OF ARIZONA ex rel. WILLIAM G. MONTGOMERY, Maricopa County Attorney, Petitioner/Appellee, v. THE HONORABLE RONALD KARP, Justice of the Peace Pro Tempore,

More information

In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas. No. 05-13-01004-CR. NICOLAS STEPHEN LLOYD, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas. No. 05-13-01004-CR. NICOLAS STEPHEN LLOYD, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee REVERSE and REMAND; and Opinion Filed December 22, 2014. S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-13-01004-CR NICOLAS STEPHEN LLOYD, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

More information

Court of Appeals of Ohio

Court of Appeals of Ohio [Cite as Stringer v. Dept. of Health-Ohio, 2015-Ohio-2277.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 102166 KIMBERLY A. STRINGER PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT

More information

[Cite as State v. Palmer, 112 Ohio St.3d 457, 2007-Ohio-374.]

[Cite as State v. Palmer, 112 Ohio St.3d 457, 2007-Ohio-374.] [Cite as State v. Palmer, 112 Ohio St.3d 457, 2007-Ohio-374.] THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLANT, v. PALMER, APPELLEE. [Cite as State v. Palmer, 112 Ohio St.3d 457, 2007-Ohio-374.] Criminal law Speedy-trial

More information

NO. COA12-1221 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS. Filed: 19 March 2013

NO. COA12-1221 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS. Filed: 19 March 2013 NO. COA12-1221 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS Filed: 19 March 2013 PAUL E. WALTERS, Plaintiff v. Nash County No. 12 CVS 622 ROY A. COOPER, III, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE STATE

More information

IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS. No. 10-13-00109-CR. From the 85th District Court Brazos County, Texas Trial Court No. 11-05822-CRF-85 O P I N I O N

IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS. No. 10-13-00109-CR. From the 85th District Court Brazos County, Texas Trial Court No. 11-05822-CRF-85 O P I N I O N IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS No. 10-13-00109-CR MICHAEL ANTHONY MCGRUDER, v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellant Appellee From the 85th District Court Brazos County, Texas Trial Court No. 11-05822-CRF-85 O

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE STATE OF DELAWARE, No. 169, 2014 Plaintiff-Below, Appellant, Court Below: Superior Court v. of the State of Delaware, in and for New Castle County ANDY LABOY,

More information

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA William J. Bell : : No. 2034 C.D. 2012 v. : Submitted: April 19, 2013 : Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, : Department of Transportation, : Bureau of Driver Licensing,

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT D E C I S I O N. Rendered on December 9, 2014

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT D E C I S I O N. Rendered on December 9, 2014 [Cite as In re JCTH Countryside Real Estate, L.L.C., 2014-Ohio-5861.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT In re: Certificate of Need Application of : Countryside Health Care Center,

More information

STATE OF MINNESOTA IN SUPREME COURT A11-0309. Court of Appeals Dietzen, J.

STATE OF MINNESOTA IN SUPREME COURT A11-0309. Court of Appeals Dietzen, J. STATE OF MINNESOTA IN SUPREME COURT A11-0309 Court of Appeals Dietzen, J. Laura Patino, Respondent, vs. Filed: September 26, 2012 Office of Appellate Courts One 2007 Chevrolet, VIN # 1GNFC16017J255427,

More information

T E X A S Y O U N G L A W Y E R S A S S O C I A T I O N A N D S T A T E B A R O F T E X A S G UIDE T O C O URT

T E X A S Y O U N G L A W Y E R S A S S O C I A T I O N A N D S T A T E B A R O F T E X A S G UIDE T O C O URT T E X A S Y O U N G L A W Y E R S A S S O C I A T I O N A N D S T A T E B A R O F T E X A S G UIDE T O T RAFFIC C O URT A G UIDE T O T RAFFIC C O URT Prepared and distributed as a Public Service by the

More information

Stages in a Capital Case from http://deathpenaltyinfo.msu.edu/

Stages in a Capital Case from http://deathpenaltyinfo.msu.edu/ Stages in a Capital Case from http://deathpenaltyinfo.msu.edu/ Note that not every case goes through all of the steps outlined here. Some states have different procedures. I. Pre-Trial Crimes that would

More information

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CLERMONT COUNTY, OHIO. Plaintiffs : CASE NO. 2012 CVA 01052

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CLERMONT COUNTY, OHIO. Plaintiffs : CASE NO. 2012 CVA 01052 COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CLERMONT COUNTY, OHIO FRANKLIN MILLER, et al., : Plaintiffs : CASE NO. 2012 CVA 01052 vs. : Judge McBride H&G NURSING HOMES, INC., et al., : DECISION/ENTRY Defendants : Slater & Zurz,

More information

The N.C. State Bar v. Wood NO. COA10-463. (Filed 1 February 2011) 1. Attorneys disciplinary action convicted of criminal offense

The N.C. State Bar v. Wood NO. COA10-463. (Filed 1 February 2011) 1. Attorneys disciplinary action convicted of criminal offense The N.C. State Bar v. Wood NO. COA10-463 (Filed 1 February 2011) 1. Attorneys disciplinary action convicted of criminal offense The North Carolina State Bar Disciplinary Hearing Commission did not err

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. No. 99,491. KANSAS DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, Appellant, JILL POWELL, Appellee. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. No. 99,491. KANSAS DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, Appellant, JILL POWELL, Appellee. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS No. 99,491 KANSAS DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, Appellant, v. JILL POWELL, Appellee. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT 1. Under the Kansas Act for Judicial Review and Civil Enforcement

More information

In re PETITION OF STRATCAP INVESTMENTS, INC. [Cite as In re Petition of Stratcap Investments, Inc., 154 Ohio App.3d 89, 2003-Ohio-4589.

In re PETITION OF STRATCAP INVESTMENTS, INC. [Cite as In re Petition of Stratcap Investments, Inc., 154 Ohio App.3d 89, 2003-Ohio-4589. [Cite as In re Petition of Stratcap Investments, Inc., 154 Ohio App.3d 89, 2003-Ohio-4589.] In re PETITION OF STRATCAP INVESTMENTS, INC. [Cite as In re Petition of Stratcap Investments, Inc., 154 Ohio

More information

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES. (District Courthouse) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES. (District Courthouse) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) JON BRYANT ARTZ, ESQ. - State Bar No. LAW OFFICES OF JON BRYANT ARTZ 0 Wilshire Boulevard, th Floor Los Angeles, California 00-0 Telephone: ( 0- Facsimile: ( 0-1 Attorney for Defendant 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 SUPERIOR

More information