State v. Strohacker

Ohio Supreme Court

State v. Strohacker

672 N.E.2d 171, 77 Ohio St. 3d 162, 1996 Ohio LEXIS 1829

Ohio Supreme Court·Decided December 11, 1996·No. No. 96-888·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

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.”

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

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.”

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.

State v. Strohacker, 672 N.E.2d 171, 77 Ohio St. 3d 162, 1996 Ohio LEXIS 1829 (Ohio 1996).

Pincite

672 N.E.2d 171 (State v. Strohacker) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related