relevance requirement in Ohio

2025Id., citing Koogler at ¶ 16 . {¶ 19} Here, there were numerous indicators that, taken together, supported Officer Hall's reasonable suspicion that Pelfrey was intoxicated.

2014Butler No. CA2002-12-303, 2004-Ohio-90 , we note our brethren from the Twelfth District stated: "However, we find that glassy, bloodshot eyes are generally accepted as classic indicia of intoxication. ***Furthermore, the fact that there may have been another explanation for appellant's glassy, bloodshot eyes does not diminish the relevance of these factors regarding the question of whether the officer reasonably suspected appellant was intoxicated." {¶18} We disagree.

2025First, the evidence must meet a two-pronged relevance requirement; that is, evidence must be relevant to (1) “the particular purpose for which it is offered – i.e., a non-character-based purpose, as allowed by Evid.R. 404(B)”; and (2) “an issue that is actually in dispute – i.e., an issue that is material to the case as required by Evid.R. 401.” Kamer at ¶ 130 , citing State v. Smith, 2020-Ohio-4441, ¶ 37-38 .

2024This evidence may be admissible for another purpose, such as proving motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident. … {¶ 83} To satisfy the relevance test, the evidence must be relevant to “a non- character-based issue that is material to the case.” State v. Smith, 2020-Ohio-4441, ¶ 38 .

2021To be sure, the relevance inquiry often proves vexing because “[i]t is almost always true that propensity evidence will have some relevance.” Hartman, 161 Ohio St.3d 214 , 2020-Ohio-4440 , 161 N.E. 3d 651, at ¶ 25 ; see Evid.R. 401 (“ ‘Relevant evidence’ means evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.”).

2021To be sure, the relevance inquiry often proves vexing because “[i]t is almost always true that propensity evidence will have some relevance.” Hartman, 161 Ohio St.3d 214 , 2020-Ohio-4440 , 161 N.E. 3d 651, at ¶ 25 ; see Evid.R. 401 (“ ‘Relevant evidence’ means evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.”).

2024Further, as Gray admits, the evidence is devoid of any field sobriety tests other than the sole reference to Gray passing the HGN test. {¶22} While there may be an innocent or non-impairment reason that a defendant’s eyes are bloodshot and glassy, this “does not diminish the relevance of these factors for the question of whether the trooper reasonably suspected [the defendant] was intoxicated.” State v. Ashbury, 12th Dist. Clinton No. CA 2021-02-003, 2021-Ohio-2788 , ¶16 quoting State v. Koogler, 12th Dist. Preble No. CA2010-04-006, 2010-Ohio-5531 , ¶16. {¶23} Based upon the totality of the ci

2024State v. Homan, 89 Ohio St.3d at 427, 732 N.E.2d 952 (2000) superseded by statute on other grounds as recognized in State v. Boczar, 113 Ohio St.3d 148 , 2007- Ohio-1251, 863 N.E.2d 155 .

2024State v. Homan, 89 Ohio St.3d at 427, 732 N.E.2d 952 (2000) superseded by statute on other grounds as recognized in State v. Boczar, 113 Ohio St.3d 148 , 2007- Ohio-1251, 863 N.E.2d 155 .

2024State v. Homan, 89 Ohio St.3d at 427, 732 N.E.2d 952 (2000) superseded by statute on other grounds as recognized in State v. Boczar, 113 Ohio St.3d 148 , 2007- Ohio-1251, 863 N.E.2d 155 .

2020Huddleston v. United States, 485 U.S. 681, 686 , 108 S.Ct. 1496 , 99 L.Ed.2d 771 (1988). {¶ 28} One other aspect of the relevance inquiry bears mentioning.

2020Huddleston v. United States, 485 U.S. 681, 686 , 108 S.Ct. 1496 , 99 L.Ed.2d 771 (1988). {¶ 28} One other aspect of the relevance inquiry bears mentioning.

2009Whitt v. ERB Lumber, 156 Ohio App.3d 518 , 2004-Ohio-1302 , 806 N.E.2d 1034 .

2009Whitt v. ERB Lumber, 156 Ohio App.3d 518 , 2004-Ohio-1302 , 806 N.E.2d 1034 .

2005State v. Dehler, 73 Ohio St.3d 307 , 1995-Ohio-320 , 652 N.E.2d 987 ; State v. Terrell, 72 Ohio St.3d 247 , 1995-Ohio-54 , 648 N.E.2d 1353 ; State v. Smith (Jan. 29, 1996), Cuyahoga App. No. 68643, unreported, reopening disallowed (June 14, 1996), Motion No. 71793. {¶ 4} Notwithstanding the relevance of the doctrine of res judicata, a substantive review of Hines' brief in support of his application for reopening fails to establish the claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel.

2005State v. Dehler, 73 Ohio St.3d 307 , 1995-Ohio-320 , 652 N.E.2d 987 ; State v. Terrell, 72 Ohio St.3d 247 , 1995-Ohio-54 , 648 N.E.2d 1353 ; State v. Smith (Jan. 29, 1996), Cuyahoga App. No. 68643, unreported, reopening disallowed (June 14, 1996), Motion No. 71793. {¶ 4} Notwithstanding the relevance of the doctrine of res judicata, a substantive review of Hines' brief in support of his application for reopening fails to establish the claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel.

2005State v. Dehler, 73 Ohio St.3d 307 , 1995-Ohio-320 , 652 N.E.2d 987 ; State v. Terrell, 72 Ohio St.3d 247 , 1995-Ohio-54 , 648 N.E.2d 1353 ; State v. Smith (Jan. 29, 1996), Cuyahoga App. No. 68643, unreported, reopening disallowed (June 14, 1996), Motion No. 71793. {¶ 4} Notwithstanding the relevance of the doctrine of res judicata, a substantive review of Hines' brief in support of his application for reopening fails to establish the claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel.

2005State v. Dehler, 73 Ohio St.3d 307 , 1995-Ohio-320 , 652 N.E.2d 987 ; State v. Terrell, 72 Ohio St.3d 247 , 1995-Ohio-54 , 648 N.E.2d 1353 ; State v. Smith (Jan. 29, 1996), Cuyahoga App. No. 68643, unreported, reopening disallowed (June 14, 1996), Motion No. 71793. {¶ 4} Notwithstanding the relevance of the doctrine of res judicata, a substantive review of Hines' brief in support of his application for reopening fails to establish the claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel.

2005State v. Dehler, 73 Ohio St.3d 307 , 1995-Ohio-320 , 652 N.E.2d 987 ; State v. Terrell, 72 Ohio St.3d 247 , 1995-Ohio-54 , 648 N.E.2d 1353 ; State v. Smith (Jan. 29, 1996), Cuyahoga App. No. 68643, unreported, reopening disallowed (June 14, 1996), Motion No. 71793. {¶ 4} Notwithstanding the relevance of the doctrine of res judicata, a substantive review of Hines' brief in support of his application for reopening fails to establish the claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel.

2005State v. Dehler, 73 Ohio St.3d 307 , 1995-Ohio-320 , 652 N.E.2d 987 ; State v. Terrell, 72 Ohio St.3d 247 , 1995-Ohio-54 , 648 N.E.2d 1353 ; State v. Smith (Jan. 29, 1996), Cuyahoga App. No. 68643, unreported, reopening disallowed (June 14, 1996), Motion No. 71793. {¶ 4} Notwithstanding the relevance of the doctrine of res judicata, a substantive review of Hines' brief in support of his application for reopening fails to establish the claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel.