City of Columbus v. Hayes

Ohio Court of Appeals

City of Columbus v. Hayes

222 N.E.2d 829, 9 Ohio App. 2d 38, 38 Ohio Op. 2d 43, 1967 Ohio App. LEXIS 469

CourtOhio Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 3, 1967

Docket8457

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 222 N.E.2d 829 (City of Columbus v. Hayes) 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 Columbus v. Hayes, 222 N.E.2d 829, 9 Ohio App. 2d 38, 38 Ohio Op. 2d 43, 1967 Ohio App. LEXIS 469 (Ohio Ct. App. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

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. Arizona (1966), 381 U. S. 136, 16 L. Ed. 2d 691, 86 S. Ct. 1602. 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.

*39 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.

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

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. Arizona (1966), 381 U. S. 136, 16 L. Ed. 2d 691, 86 S. Ct. 1602. 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.

*39 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

222 N.E.2d 829, 9 Ohio App. 2d 38, 38 Ohio Op. 2d 43, 1967 Ohio App. LEXIS 469, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-of-columbus-v-hayes-ohioctapp-1967.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack