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.
6 Ohio opinions name it 2 courts 1995–2024 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Frenchgreen2 sentences2024Such evidence is relevant as it may tend to show “an absence of guilt * * *.” Ott at 534 . {¶10} In State v. French, the Ohio Supreme Court considered whether, “in a charge under R.C. 4511.19(A)(1), expert testimony is required to explain the significance of a legally obtained breathalyzer test result that is below the per se level.” 72 Ohio St.3d 446, 452 (1995). 2001State v. French (1995), 72 Ohio St.3d 446 , paragraph two of the syllabus. | 1 | 3 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Myers
green
2 sentences2000The Ohio Supreme Court has stated: This court has previously held that when introducing the results of a legally obtained breathalyzer test into evidence in prosecutions under R.C. 4511.19 (A)(1), the state must present expert testimony "to relate the numerical figure representing a percentage of alcohol by weight in the bodily substance, as shown by the results of the chemical test, to the common understanding of what it is to be under the influence of alcohol." Newark v. Lucas * * * 40 Ohio st.3d at 105, 532 N.E.2d at 134 , citing State v. Myers (1971), 26 Ohio St.2d 190 , 198 , 55 O.O.2d 44 2000The Ohio Supreme Court has stated: This court has previously held that when introducing the results of a legally obtained breathalyzer test into evidence in prosecutions under R.C. 4511.19 (A)(1), the state must present expert testimony "to relate the numerical figure representing a percentage of alcohol by weight in the bodily substance, as shown by the results of the chemical test, to the common understanding of what it is to be under the influence of alcohol." Newark v. Lucas * * * 40 Ohio st.3d at 105, 532 N.E.2d at 134 , citing State v. Myers (1971), 26 Ohio St.2d 190 , 198 , 55 O.O.2d 44 | 3 | 1995–2000 |
City of Newark v. Lucas
green
2 sentences1995This court has previously held that when introducing the results of a legally obtained breathalyzer test into evidence in prosecutions under R.C. 4511.19(A)(1), the state must present expert testimony “to relate the numerical figure representing a percentage of alcohol by weight in the bodily substance, as shown by the results of the chemical test, to the common understanding of what it is to be under the influence of alcohol.” Newark v. Lucas, supra, 40 Ohio St.3d at 105 , 532 N.E.2d at 134 , citing State v. Myers (1971), 26 Ohio St.2d 190, 198 , 55 O.O.2d 447, 452 , 271 N.E.2d 245, 251 . 1995This court has previously held that when introducing the results of a legally obtained breathalyzer test into evidence in prosecutions under R.C. 4511.19(A)(1), the state must present expert testimony “to relate the numerical figure representing a percentage of alcohol by weight in the bodily substance, as shown by the results of the chemical test, to the common understanding of what it is to be under the influence of alcohol.” Newark v. Lucas, supra, 40 Ohio St.3d at 105 , 532 N.E.2d at 134 , citing State v. Myers (1971), 26 Ohio St.2d 190, 198 , 55 O.O.2d 447, 452 , 271 N.E.2d 245, 251 . | 2 | 1995–1995 |
State v. Ott
green
1 sentence2001State v. Ott (1999), 133 Ohio App.3d 532 , 534 . 1 Regarding the admissibility of such evidence, the Ohio Supreme Court has held that [w]hen introducing a legally obtained breathalyzer test result below .10 into evidence in prosecutions under R.C. 4511.19 (A)(1), the state must present expert testimony to relate the numerical figure representing a percentage of alcohol by weight in the bodily substance, as shown by the results of the chemical test, to the common understanding of what it is to be under the influence of alcohol. | 1 | 2001–2001 |
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.