State v. Strohacker

Ohio Supreme Court

State v. Strohacker

1996 Ohio 334, 77 Ohio St. 3d 162

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedDecember 11, 1996

Docket1996-0888

StatusPublished

This text of 1996 Ohio 334 (State v. Strohacker) 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. Strohacker, 1996 Ohio 334, 77 Ohio St. 3d 162 (Ohio 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

[This opinion has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 77 Ohio St.3d 162.]

THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLEE, v. STROHACKER, APPELLANT. [Cite as State v. Strohacker, 1996-Ohio-334.] Criminal law—Operating motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol— Evidence—Chemical test to determine intoxication not rendered inadmissible by failure to advise accused of statutory right to another test provided by R.C. 4511.19(D)(3). (No. 96-888—Submitted November 12, 1996—Decided December 11, 1996.) APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Lorain County, No. 95CA006139. __________________ Bradley & Giardini Co., L.P.A., and Jack W. Bradley, for appellant. __________________ {¶ 1} The discretionary appeal to this court was allowed only as to “Proposition of Law One,” which states: “Failure to advise a defendant of his right to an independent chemical test violates both the defendant’s statutory and constitutional rights and must result in a suppression of the test results.” {¶ 2} The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed on the authority of Hilliard v. Elfrink (1996), 77 Ohio St.3d 155, 672 N.E.2d 166, decided today. MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and STRATTON, JJ., concur. __________________

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 77 Ohio St.3d 162.]

THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLEE, v. STROHACKER, APPELLANT. [Cite as State v. Strohacker, 1996-Ohio-334.] Criminal law—Operating motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol— Evidence—Chemical test to determine intoxication not rendered inadmissible by failure to advise accused of statutory right to another test provided by R.C. 4511.19(D)(3). (No. 96-888—Submitted November 12, 1996—Decided December 11, 1996.) APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Lorain County, No. 95CA006139. __________________ Bradley & Giardini Co., L.P.A., and Jack W. Bradley, for appellant. __________________ {¶ 1} The discretionary appeal to this court was allowed only as to “Proposition of Law One,” which states: “Failure to advise a defendant of his right to an independent chemical test violates both the defendant’s statutory and constitutional rights and must result in a suppression of the test results.” {¶ 2} The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed on the authority of Hilliard v. Elfrink (1996), 77 Ohio St.3d 155, 672 N.E.2d 166, decided today. MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and STRATTON, JJ., concur. __________________

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1996 Ohio 334, 77 Ohio St. 3d 162, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-strohacker-ohio-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack