As recently reported by CTV News, a man is facing criminal charges for canoeing while drunk. According to the news report, officers were called to Christina Lake on the report of an intoxicated person. When the officers arrived, the man hid under a dock, and an officer went into the water bring him out. The officers arrested the man and charged him with impaired operation of the canoe. This incident occurred in British Columbia, but could someone in Ohio be charged with DUI/OVI in a canoe?
According to a story by NBC4i, the Ohio State Highway Patrol reports that 30% of DUI arrests (called ‘OVI’ in Ohio’) come from repeat offenders. In Ohio, the mandatory OVI penalties increase with every conviction in ten-years (called the ‘lookback period’). Those penalties include vehicle sanctions, license suspensions, incarceration, and other consequences.
The issue of venue recently arose in an Ohio Vehicular Homicide case. As reported by the Leader-Telegram, the defendant was accused of hitting two highway workers in Clark County. As a result of the collision, one worker died, and the other was seriously injured. The defense attorney filed a motion for change of venue. What is venue, and when can it be changed?
We’ve used this space in the past to discuss how the nationwide trend in marijuana legalization has impacted the enforcement of DUI laws (called ‘OVI in Ohio’). After last week’s election, 37 states plus Washington D.C. have now legalized marijuana in some fashion. While recreational use of marijuana has been decriminalized (but not legalized) in Ohio, medical marijuana has been legal here since 2016. What does this mean for marijuana DUI charges? Could changes to Ohio’s OVI laws be on the horizon?
In Ohio DUI/OVI cases, the prosecution sometimes introduces expert testimony. If a prosecutor intends to do so, the prosecutor must provide the defense attorney with a written report summarizing the expert’s testimony. According to the Ohio discovery rules, the report must be disclosed to defense counsel at least 21 days prior to trial. What happens when the report does not contain all the expert’s testimony or isn’t provided timely? A recent decision from the Ohio Supreme Court answers that question.