The defendant in an Ohio Vehicular Homicide/Vehicular Assault case filed a motion to suppress the results of his blood test. Blood test results may be suppressed for various reasons. In this case, the defendant argues the blood test did not comply with the requirements of the Ohio Revised Code and the Ohio Administrative Code.
A recent appellate case involves two legal issues which are often litigated in Vehicular Homicide and Vehicular Assault cases in Ohio. The first issue is the admissibility of expert witness testimony. The second issue is whether the jury should be instructed about the option of finding the defendant guilty of a lesser offense. The case is State v. Horst.
The law governing DUI (called ‘OVI’ in Ohio) is going to change. House Bill 37, signed by Governor Mike DeWine, becomes law on April 9, 2025. The legislation changes four separate areas of law: (1) Driving privileges and ignition interlock devices for OVI license suspensions; (2) Financial penalties for OVI convictions; (3) Oral fluid testing in OVI cases; and (4) Aggravated Vehicular Homicide penalties when a defendant has prior OVI convictions. This article addresses the changes in that order.
The Ohio Supreme Court recently decided a case in which an officer conducted a traffic stop after learning the basis for the stop was no longer valid. The issue was whether evidence obtained from the stop was admissible in the defendant’s trial. This issue was addressed by this court in 1984. However, in the recent case, the Court reached a different conclusion.
This blog is not a bar band: we take requests without asking for tips! Yesterday, we received a question from a reader who wants to understand the interplay of Child Endangering and DUI (called ‘OVI’ in Ohio). This article is going to answer that reader’s question. Ask and you shall receive.
A recent news story reported the arrest of a 14-year-old boy for DUI (called ‘OVI’ in Ohio). It is somewhat unusual for a juvenile to be charged with OVI in Ohio. When a juvenile faces an OVI case, some aspects are the same as adult OVIs and some components are different. Those components include the investigation, the court process, and the penalties.
Ohio’s significantly revised law ‘Driving While Texting’ went into effect on April 4, 2023. When a criminal law is created or revised, it takes a while for the law to be the subject of appellate court decisions. In one of the first decisions interpreting the revised ‘Driving While Texting’ law, a court of appeals concluded the exceptions to the law are affirmative defenses.
In DUI cases (called ‘OVI’ in Ohio), a defendant’s blood or urine sample may be tested by a crime lab to determine the concentration of alcohol and/or drugs in the sample. In court, a lab analyst testifies regarding the blood or urine testing and the results of the test. But what if the analyst testifying is not the analyst who conducted the test? The recent case of Smith v. Arizona addressed whether this violates the defendant’s right to confront witnesses.
When an officer arrests a driver for DUI (called ‘OVI’ in Ohio), the officer typically requests that the driver consent to a blood, breath, or urine test. However, a statute in the Ohio Revised Code (section 4511.191) says a driver arrested for OVI implicitly consents to those tests. Can a driver arrested for OVI revoke that consent? This question has not been directly addressed in Ohio but was recently answered by the Supreme Court of Colorado.
The Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) recently implemented a policy of administering a breath alcohol test to every driver stopped for a traffic offense. Even if the stop is for a minor violation, and even if the officer has no suspicion the driver is under the influence, the driver must submit to a breath test. Refusing the test is a criminal offense. Could this happen in Ohio?
Columbus OVI/DUI Attorney Blog