State v. Weirtz

Ohio Supreme Court

State v. Weirtz

781 N.E.2d 1017, 98 Ohio St. 3d 1407

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedJanuary 15, 2003

Docket2002-2015

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 781 N.E.2d 1017 (State v. Weirtz) 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. Weirtz, 781 N.E.2d 1017, 98 Ohio St. 3d 1407 (Ohio 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

Delaware App. No. 02CAC06032, 2002-Ohio-5294. 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 dated October 28, 2002:

“Does State v. Homan [2000], 89 Ohio St.3d 421, 2002-Ohio-212 [732 N.E.2d 952], preclude a law enforcement officer from testifying at trial regarding observations made during a defendant’s [1408]*1408performance of nonscientific standardized field sobriety tests when those tests are not administered in strict compliance with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration guidelines?”

Resnick and F.E. Sweeney, JJ., dissent. O’Connor, J., not participating.

The conflict cases are State v. Brandenburg, Montgomery App. No. 18836, 2002-Ohio-912; State v. Schmitt, Mercer App. No. 10-01-16, 2002-Ohio-4615; and State v. Pingor, Franklin App. No. 01AP-302, 2001-Ohio-4088.

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

Delaware App. No. 02CAC06032, 2002-Ohio-5294. 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 dated October 28, 2002:

“Does State v. Homan [2000], 89 Ohio St.3d 421, 2002-Ohio-212 [732 N.E.2d 952], preclude a law enforcement officer from testifying at trial regarding observations made during a defendant’s [1408]*1408performance of nonscientific standardized field sobriety tests when those tests are not administered in strict compliance with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration guidelines?”

Resnick and F.E. Sweeney, JJ., dissent. O’Connor, J., not participating.

The conflict cases are State v. Brandenburg, Montgomery App. No. 18836, 2002-Ohio-912; State v. Schmitt, Mercer App. No. 10-01-16, 2002-Ohio-4615; and State v. Pingor, Franklin App. No. 01AP-302, 2001-Ohio-4088.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

781 N.E.2d 1017, 98 Ohio St. 3d 1407, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-weirtz-ohio-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack