State v. Griffith

Ohio Supreme Court

State v. Griffith

1996 Ohio 256, 74 Ohio St. 3d 554

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedFebruary 21, 1996

Docket1995-0209

StatusPublished

This text of 1996 Ohio 256 (State v. Griffith) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Griffith, 1996 Ohio 256, 74 Ohio St. 3d 554 (Ohio 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

[This opinion has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 74 Ohio St.3d 554.]

THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLANT, v. GRIFFITH, APPELLEE. [Cite as State v. Griffith, 1996-Ohio-256.] Criminal law—Exclusionary rule not applicable as a sanction for violating R.C. 2935.20, the right to communicate with an attorney. (Nos. 95-209 and 95-398—Submitted January 10, 1996—Decided February 21, 1996.) APPEAL from and CERTIFIED by the Court of Appeals for Delaware County, No. 94CAC02003. __________________ Peter B. Ruffing, Chief City Prosecutor, and Richard M. Garner, Assistant City Prosecutor, for appellant. Stuart A. Benis, for appellee. __________________ {¶ 1} This cause is before this court upon the certification of the court of appeals that its judgment conflicted with the judgment of the Court of Appeals for Franklin County in Columbus v. Reid (1986), 32 Ohio App.3d 7, 513 N.E.2d 351, and the judgment of the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County in Lakewood v. Waselenchuk (1994), 94 Ohio App.3d 684, 641 N.E.2d 767, upon the following question: “Does imposition of the exclusionary rule lie as a remedy for police violation of the accused’s statutory right to counsel under Section 2935.20 of the Revised Code in a prosecution arising under Section 4511.19(A)(3) of the Revised Code such that the prosecution should be precluded from presenting evidence of the results of an otherwise admissible breath alcohol content analysis of the accused solely because of police failure to comply with Section 2935.20 of the Revised Code?” SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

{¶ 2} This court answers the certified question in the negative. The judgment of the court of appeals is reversed and the trial court’s judgment is reinstated on the authority of Fairborn v. Mattachione (1995), 72 Ohio St.3d 345, 650 N.E.2d 426. MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY and COOK, JJ., concur. WRIGHT and PFEIFER, JJ., dissent. __________________ WRIGHT, J., dissenting. {¶ 3} I dissent for generally the same reasons I dissented in Fairborn v. Mattachione (1995), 72 Ohio St.3d 345, 650 N.E.2d 426, a dissent that was joined by Chief Justice Moyer and Justice Pfeifer. I continue to believe that this issue is factually specific and should be determined case by case. PFEIFER, J., concurs in the foregoing dissenting opinion. __________________

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

[This opinion has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 74 Ohio St.3d 554.]

THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLANT, v. GRIFFITH, APPELLEE. [Cite as State v. Griffith, 1996-Ohio-256.] Criminal law—Exclusionary rule not applicable as a sanction for violating R.C. 2935.20, the right to communicate with an attorney. (Nos. 95-209 and 95-398—Submitted January 10, 1996—Decided February 21, 1996.) APPEAL from and CERTIFIED by the Court of Appeals for Delaware County, No. 94CAC02003. __________________ Peter B. Ruffing, Chief City Prosecutor, and Richard M. Garner, Assistant City Prosecutor, for appellant. Stuart A. Benis, for appellee. __________________ {¶ 1} This cause is before this court upon the certification of the court of appeals that its judgment conflicted with the judgment of the Court of Appeals for Franklin County in Columbus v. Reid (1986), 32 Ohio App.3d 7, 513 N.E.2d 351, and the judgment of the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County in Lakewood v. Waselenchuk (1994), 94 Ohio App.3d 684, 641 N.E.2d 767, upon the following question: “Does imposition of the exclusionary rule lie as a remedy for police violation of the accused’s statutory right to counsel under Section 2935.20 of the Revised Code in a prosecution arising under Section 4511.19(A)(3) of the Revised Code such that the prosecution should be precluded from presenting evidence of the results of an otherwise admissible breath alcohol content analysis of the accused solely because of police failure to comply with Section 2935.20 of the Revised Code?” SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

{¶ 2} This court answers the certified question in the negative. The judgment of the court of appeals is reversed and the trial court’s judgment is reinstated on the authority of Fairborn v. Mattachione (1995), 72 Ohio St.3d 345, 650 N.E.2d 426. MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY and COOK, JJ., concur. WRIGHT and PFEIFER, JJ., dissent. __________________ WRIGHT, J., dissenting. {¶ 3} I dissent for generally the same reasons I dissented in Fairborn v. Mattachione (1995), 72 Ohio St.3d 345, 650 N.E.2d 426, a dissent that was joined by Chief Justice Moyer and Justice Pfeifer. I continue to believe that this issue is factually specific and should be determined case by case. PFEIFER, J., concurs in the foregoing dissenting opinion. __________________

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1996 Ohio 256, 74 Ohio St. 3d 554, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-griffith-ohio-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack