Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
28 Ohio opinions name it 1 courts 1985–2013 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Ohio courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
City of Columbus v. Aleshiregreen2 sentences2013Thus, “[t]he defendant may still challenge the accuracy of his specific test results, although he may not challenge the general accuracy of the legislatively determined test procedure as a valid scientific means of determining blood alcohol levels.” State v. Tanner, 15 Ohio St.3d 1, 6 , 472 N.E.2d 689 (1984); Columbus v. Aleshire, 187 Ohio App.3d 660 , 2010- Ohio-2773, 933 N.E.2d 317, ¶ 27 (10th Dist.) (“while [supreme court precedent] permits evidentiary objections to the test results challenging issues such as competency, 8 admissibility, relevancy, authenticity, and credibility, it does not 2013Thus, “[t]he defendant may still challenge the accuracy of his specific test results, although he may not challenge the general accuracy of the legislatively determined test procedure as a valid scientific means of determining blood alcohol levels.” State v. Tanner, 15 Ohio St.3d 1, 6 , 472 N.E.2d 689 (1984); Columbus v. Aleshire, 187 Ohio App.3d 660 , 2010- Ohio-2773, 933 N.E.2d 317, ¶ 27 (10th Dist.) (“while [supreme court precedent] permits evidentiary objections to the test results challenging issues such as competency, 8 admissibility, relevancy, authenticity, and credibility, it does not | 9 | 10 |
State v. Massie, 2007 Ca 24 (3-21-2008)green2 sentences2013No. 2007 CA 24, 2008-Ohio-1312, ¶ 36 (“[the defendant’s] Daubert challenge * * * is forestalled by the ‘legislative mandate recognized in Vega’”). {¶15} While no general attack on reliability may be made, when duly challenged, the State must demonstrate that the bodily substance was “analyzed in accordance with methods approved by the director of health by an individual possessing a valid permit.” R.C. 4511.19(D)(1)(b). 2013No. 2007 CA 24, 2008-Ohio-1312, ¶ 36 (“Massie’s Daubert challenge [to the BAC DataMaster test results] * * * is forestalled by the ‘legislative mandate recognized in Vega,’ and the trial court properly limited Massie to the issue of his own test”). {¶30} Alternatively, it is argued that the delegation of authority to the director of health to approve testing methods and devices violates the separation of powers doctrine and infringes upon the trial court’s regulation of the admission of expert testimony under Evidence Rule 702. 9 {¶31} “The supreme court shall prescribe rules governing practic | 5 | 5 |
City of Columbus v. Daygreen2 sentences2013No. 99-L-061, 2000 Ohio App. LEXIS 2656 , *11 (June 16, 2000), quoting Columbus v. Day, 24 Ohio App.3d 173, 174 (10th Dist.1985). 2006See, also, Tanner, supra ("[a] defendant may still challenge the accuracy of his specific test results, although he may not challenge the general accuracy of the legislatively determined test procedure as a valid scientific means of determining blood alcohol levels"), and Whitehall v. Weese (Oct. 17, 1995), Franklin App. No. 95APC02-169 ("while a defendant `may not challenge the general accuracy of the legislatively determined test procedure as a valid scientific means of determining blood-alcohol levels, he may challenge the accuracy of his specific test result.'" Id., quoting Columbus v. Day | 3 | 6 |
State v. Tannergreen2 sentences2013Thus, “[t]he defendant may still challenge the accuracy of his specific test results, although he may not challenge the general accuracy of the legislatively determined test procedure as a valid scientific means of determining blood alcohol levels.” State v. Tanner, 15 Ohio St.3d 1, 6 , 472 N.E.2d 689 (1984); Columbus v. Aleshire, 187 Ohio App.3d 660 , 2010- Ohio-2773, 933 N.E.2d 317, ¶ 27 (10th Dist.) (“while [supreme court precedent] permits evidentiary objections to the test results challenging issues such as competency, 8 admissibility, relevancy, authenticity, and credibility, it does not 2013Thus, “[t]he defendant may still challenge the accuracy of his specific test results, although he may not challenge the general accuracy of the legislatively determined test procedure as a valid scientific means of determining blood alcohol levels.” State v. Tanner, 15 Ohio St.3d 1, 6 , 472 N.E.2d 689 (1984); Columbus v. Aleshire, 187 Ohio App.3d 660 , 2010- Ohio-2773, 933 N.E.2d 317, ¶ 27 (10th Dist.) (“while [supreme court precedent] permits evidentiary objections to the test results challenging issues such as competency, 8 admissibility, relevancy, authenticity, and credibility, it does not | 2 | 22 |
State v. Vegagreen2 sentences2013The court in Tanner held: “[t]he defendant may still challenge the accuracy of his specific test results, although he may not challenge the general accuracy of the legislatively determined test procedure as a valid scientific means of determining blood alcohol levels.” (Emphasis added.) Id. at 6 . {¶25} In the years following Vega, supra, the Supreme Court of Ohio reaffirmed its teaching. 1990Columbus v. Day (1985), 24 Ohio App.3d 173, 174 , 24 OBR 263, 264, 493 N.E.2d 1002, 1003 ; see, also, State v. Bichsel (June 17, 1987), Wayne App. No. 2209, unreported, 1987 WL 13645 , citing State v. Vega (1984), 12 Ohio St.3d 185, 190 , 12 OBR 251, 256, 465 N.E.2d 1303, 1308 . | 1 | 2 |
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.green2 sentences2013See Vega at 189 . {¶18} Tagliaferri also argues that the delegation of authority to the director of health to determine the validity of testing devices violates the separation of powers doctrine and infringes upon the trial court’s role as gatekeeper and its regulation of the admission of expert testimony under Evidence Rule 702 and Daubert v. Merrill Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 , 113 S.Ct. 2786 , 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993). {¶19} “The Ohio Rules of Evidence, which were promulgated by the Supreme Court pursuant to Section 5(B), Article IV of the Ohio Constitution, must control over sub 2013See Vega at 189 . {¶18} Tagliaferri also argues that the delegation of authority to the director of health to determine the validity of testing devices violates the separation of powers doctrine and infringes upon the trial court’s role as gatekeeper and its regulation of the admission of expert testimony under Evidence Rule 702 and Daubert v. Merrill Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 , 113 S.Ct. 2786 , 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993). {¶19} “The Ohio Rules of Evidence, which were promulgated by the Supreme Court pursuant to Section 5(B), Article IV of the Ohio Constitution, must control over sub | 1 | 1 |
State v. Klintworthgreen1 sentence2013No. 10CA40, 2011-Ohio-3553, ¶ 12 (“this court will not allow the defendant to us[e] expert testimony to attack the general reliability or general accuracy of a legislatively determined test procedure - urine 7 testing - as a valid scientific means of determining blood alcohol levels”) (citation omitted); State v. Massie, 2nd Dist. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. French
green
2 sentences2013Thus, “[t]he defendant may still challenge the accuracy of his specific test results, although he may not challenge the general accuracy of the legislatively determined test procedure as a valid scientific means of determining blood alcohol levels.” State v. Tanner, 15 Ohio St.3d 1, 6 , 472 N.E.2d 689 (1984); French, 72 Ohio St.3d at 451-452 , 650 N.E.2d 887 . {¶21} In addition to attacks on the specific performance of a particular breath test in an individual defendant’s case, a defendant may also make an attack on the reliability of the Intoxilyzer 8000 based on specific reasons, as opposed 2013Thus, “[t]he defendant may still challenge the accuracy of his specific test results, although he may not challenge the general accuracy of the legislatively determined test procedure as a valid scientific means of determining blood alcohol levels.” State v. Tanner, 15 Ohio St.3d 1, 6 , 472 N.E.2d 689 (1984); French, 72 Ohio St.3d at 451-452 , 650 N.E.2d 887 . {¶21} In addition to attacks on the specific performance of a particular breath test in an individual defendant’s case, a defendant may also make an attack on the reliability of the Intoxilyzer 8000 based on specific reasons, as opposed | 9 | 2013–2013 |
State v. Boyd
green
2 sentences1991This kind of evidence is always relevant and admissible under the holding in State v. Boyd (1985), 18 Ohio St.3d 30 , 18 OBR 68, 479 N.E.2d 850 . 1990State v. Boyd, supra. The defense may not challenge the general accuracy of the legislatively determined test procedure. | 2 | 1990–1991 |
State v. Yoder
green
1 sentence2013For example, in 1993, the Supreme Court in Yoder, supra, stated: “The Director of Health, not the court, was delegated the discretionary authority for adoption 7 of breath testing devices and the procedures for their use. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
State v. Estep
green
2 sentences2011See, State v. Peprah, supra, at ¶ 46 , (holding that “this court will not allow the defendant to us expert testimony to attack the general reliability or general accuracy of a legislatively determined test procedure – urine testing – as a valid scientific means of determining blood alcohol levels.”); State v. Estep (1991), 73 Ohio App.3d 609 , 598 N.E.2d 96 (“expert testimony designed to impeach the general reliability of Ohio’s legislatively determined urine- alcohol testing procedures is clearly inadmissible[,]” relying on Vega, supra.); Wellston v. Brown, Jackson App. No. 03CA25, 2005-Ohio- 2011See, State v. Peprah, supra, at ¶ 46 , (holding that “this court will not allow the defendant to us expert testimony to attack the general reliability or general accuracy of a legislatively determined test procedure – urine testing – as a valid scientific means of determining blood alcohol levels.”); State v. Estep (1991), 73 Ohio App.3d 609 , 598 N.E.2d 96 (“expert testimony designed to impeach the general reliability of Ohio’s legislatively determined urine- alcohol testing procedures is clearly inadmissible[,]” relying on Vega, supra.); Wellston v. Brown, Jackson App. No. 03CA25, 2005-Ohio- | 1 | 2011–2011 |
State v. Watson, 06ca000025 (6-4-2007)
neutral
1 sentence2011See, State v. Peprah, supra, at ¶ 46 , (holding that “this court will not allow the defendant to us expert testimony to attack the general reliability or general accuracy of a legislatively determined test procedure – urine testing – as a valid scientific means of determining blood alcohol levels.”); State v. Estep (1991), 73 Ohio App.3d 609 , 598 N.E.2d 96 (“expert testimony designed to impeach the general reliability of Ohio’s legislatively determined urine- alcohol testing procedures is clearly inadmissible[,]” relying on Vega, supra.); Wellston v. Brown, Jackson App. No. 03CA25, 2005-Ohio- | 1 | 2011–2011 |
City of Columbus v. Sullivan
green
1 sentence1985State v. Tanner (1984), 15 Ohio St. 3d 1, at 6 ; Columbus v. Sullivan (1982), 4 Ohio App. 3d 7, at 10 ; State v. Grimes (Dec. 30, 1980), Franklin App. No. 80AP-651, unreported, at page 6. | 1 | 1985–1985 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.