City of Cincinnati v. Duhart

322 N.E.2d 897, 41 Ohio App. 2d 127, 69 Ohio Op. 2d 479, 1974 Ohio App. LEXIS 2688
CourtOhio Court of Appeals
DecidedJune 10, 1974
DocketC 73-470
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 322 N.E.2d 897 (City of Cincinnati v. Duhart) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
City of Cincinnati v. Duhart, 322 N.E.2d 897, 41 Ohio App. 2d 127, 69 Ohio Op. 2d 479, 1974 Ohio App. LEXIS 2688 (Ohio Ct. App. 1974).

Opinion

*128 Lynch, P. J.

Defendant, appellant herein, is appealing his conviction in the Hamilton County Municipal Court on' April 13, 1973, for operating a motor vehicle on February 10, 1973, while under the influence of alcohol, in violation of Section 506.1 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Cincinnati.

Defendant’s first assignment of error is that the trial court erred in refusing his motion to exclude the breathalyzer test, made by him at the time of his arrest, at the conclusion of the prosecutor’s case and again at the conclusion of the defendant’s case, which motions were based upon the ground that the prosecution failed to lay a proper foundation for the admission of the test.

We approve and follow the first paragraph of the syllabus in State v. Miracle, 33 Ohio App. 2d 289, which is as follows :

“1. By virtue of R. C. 4511.19, before testimony as to the results of a breathalyzer test may be admitted into evidence, and before any consideration of the presumption set forth in such section may be had by the trier of fact, the following facts pertaining to the breathalyzer tests must be affirmatively established:
“a. The specimen subject of the test must be withdrawn within two hours of the time of such alleged violation ;
“b. The substance of the specimen shall be analyzed in accordance with methods approved by the director of health;

“c. The analysis shall be made by an individual possessing a valid permit issued by the director of health, pursuant to R. C. 3701.143.”

The record establishes that the breathalyzer test was administered within two hours of defendant’s arrest: that the police officer who administered this test had a senior operator’s permit from the Director of Health; and that the police officer observed defendant for a period of time before administering the breathalyzer test, during which time he had defendant perform psychomotor tests. The police officer testified further that he followed the stand *129 ard green check-off list procedure in conducting this test.

The police officer balanced the machine and ascertained that the machine had been calibrated less than ten days previously; that the calibration was .00; that the temperature was 50° centigrade; that no foreign substance was in the machine; and that the machine was operating correctly. The result of the breathalyzer test of defendant was .21% blood alcohol by his weight.

Defendant moved to exclude the result of the breathalyzer test based on State v. Miracle, supra, because there was no testimony that the methods used by the police officer were the same methods approved by the Director of Health. The trial court overruled defendant’s motion.

The facts in this ease are more similar to State v. Sickles, 25 Ohio App. 2d 1, than State v. Miracle, supra, because the police officer who administered the breathalyzer test testified in detail as to the method he followed in performing the breathalyzer test on defendant.

Upon appeal on questions of law, all reasonable presumptions consistent with the record will be indulged in favor of the validity of the judgment under review and of the regularity and legality of the proceedings below. Beach v. Sweeney, 167 Ohio St. 477; 3 Ohio Jurisprudence 2d 666-668, Appellate Review, Section 715.

The proceedings of a trial court are deemed correct unless error affirmatively appears on the face of the record, and the burden is upon one who claims the existence of error to show that error has occurred. Makranczy v. Gelfand, 109 Ohio St. 325; State, ex rel. Fulton, v. Halliday, 142 Ohio St. 548; 3 Ohio Jurisprudence 2d 670, Appellative Review, Section 716.

The pertinent part of Rule 16(B) of the Rules of Apppellate Procedure is as follows:

“If determination of the assignments of error presented requires the consideration of provisions of * * * rules or regulations, the relevant parts thereof shall be reproduced in the brief or in an addendum at the end, or may be supplied to the court in pamphlet form.” *

* This assignment of error is based upon defendant’s *130 contention that the methods used by the police officer in this case were not the same methods approved by the Director of Health.

The first paragraph of the syllabus in State v. Hall, 39 Ohio App. 2d 87, is as follows:

“1. A court can take judicial notice of the rules and regulations adopted by the Director of Health as to the method of giving a breathalyzer test for the purpose of determining intoxication pursuant to R. C. 4511.19.”

The Director of Health has promulgated- regulations on Alcohol Testing, Approval and Permit Program, which are available from the Alcohol Testing, Approval and Permit Program, Ohio Department of Health, 450 East Town Street, P. O. Box 118, Columbus, Ohio 43216.

The writer of this opinion found that neither the Hamilton County Law Library nor the Mahoning County Law Library has copies of such regulations. Because of this fact, we obtained a copy of these regulations from Mr. Leonard J. Porter, Chief of the Alcohol Testing, Approval and Permit Program, and, with the cooperation of Mr. Porter, the applicable regulations for breathalyzer tests to determine the concentration of alcohol in a person’s blood by breath analysis are attached to this opinion as Appendix A.

Breath tests done pursuant to R. C. 4511.19 shall be performed by a person with a senior operator permit issued by the Director of Health or an operator who is under the general direction of such senior operator. HD-1-07 (C), (D) and (E), and HD-1-09, Appendix A.

The Breathalyzer is an approved breath testing instrument. The calculation of the blood alcohol concentration shall be on the basis of alveolar air to blood ratio of 2,100:1 and of mixed air to blood ratio of 3,200:1. Breath samples shall be analyzed according to instructions of the manufacturer of the instrument or instructions issued by the Director of Health. HD-1-02, Appendix A.

A copy of the Breathalyzer Operational Check Test, which is issued by the manufacturer of the Breathalyzer pursuant to HD-1-02, is attached to this opinion as Appen *131 dix B. It is green in color and is often referred to by operators of the Breathalyzer as the standard green checkoff list. Mr. Leonard J. Porter, Chief of the Alcohol Testing, Approval and Permit Program, describes this Breathalyzer Operational Check List “as the on the spot criteria for the operation of the instrument known as the Breathalyzer.”

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Vizzina v. City of Birmingham
533 So. 2d 658 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1988)
Ex Parte Vizzina
533 So. 2d 658 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1988)
Vizzina v. City of Birmingham
533 So. 2d 652 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama, 1987)
State v. Ulrich
478 N.E.2d 812 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1984)
State v. Gray
446 N.E.2d 469 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1980)
State v. Wilson
384 N.E.2d 1300 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1978)
State v. Van Wie
382 A.2d 372 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1978)
State v. Watson
335 N.E.2d 883 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1975)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
322 N.E.2d 897, 41 Ohio App. 2d 127, 69 Ohio Op. 2d 479, 1974 Ohio App. LEXIS 2688, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-of-cincinnati-v-duhart-ohioctapp-1974.