State v. Boczar

Ohio Supreme Court

State v. Boczar

847 N.E.2d 4, 109 Ohio St. 3d 1454

Ohio Supreme Court·Decided May 10, 2006·No. 2006-0550·Published

Opinion

Ashtabula App. No. 2004-A-0063, 2005-Ohio-6910. On review of order certifying a conflict. The court determines that a conflict exists. The parties are to brief the issue stated at page 2 of the court of appeals’ Judgment Entry filed March 6, 2006:

“Whether R.C. 4511.19(D)(4)(b), providing that the results of field sobriety tests are admissible if the officer administered the tests in substantial compliance with the testing standards, is constitutional.”

Resnicic and O’Donnell, JJ., dissent.

The conflict cases are State v. Robinson, Fairfield App. No. 2004-CA-45, 160 Ohio App.3d 802, 2005-Ohio-2280, and State v. Hall, Licking App. No. 2004-CA-115, 163 Ohio App.3d 90, 2005-Ohio-4271.

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

Ashtabula App. No. 2004-A-0063, 2005-Ohio-6910. On review of order certifying a conflict. The court determines that a conflict exists. The parties are to brief the issue stated at page 2 of the court of appeals’ Judgment Entry filed March 6, 2006:

“Whether R.C. 4511.19(D)(4)(b), providing that the results of field sobriety tests are admissible if the officer administered the tests in substantial compliance with the testing standards, is constitutional.”

Resnicic and O’Donnell, JJ., dissent.

The conflict cases are State v. Robinson, Fairfield App. No. 2004-CA-45, 160 Ohio App.3d 802, 2005-Ohio-2280, and State v. Hall, Licking App. No. 2004-CA-115, 163 Ohio App.3d 90, 2005-Ohio-4271.

State v. Boczar, 847 N.E.2d 4, 109 Ohio St. 3d 1454 (Ohio 2006).

Pincite

847 N.E.2d 4 (State v. Boczar) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related