State v. Ambrozy

2023-Ohio-3961 (Ohio Ct. App. 2023) · Ohio Court of Appeals, Sixth Appellate District · October 27, 2023 · No. OT-22-060

Summary

The Sixth District Court of Appeals of Ohio affirmed the Ottawa County Municipal Court’s judgment in a prosecution for operating a motor vehicle with a prohibited breath-alcohol concentration. The court held that excluding a 1998 Ohio Department of Health memorandum concerning observation periods after an invalid breath sample was not an abuse of discretion because the memorandum was not a statute or formally promulgated regulation and was not relevant legal authority. The court also concluded that the exclusion did not prevent the appellant from presenting evidence challenging the reliability of the breath test.

Court
Ohio Court of Appeals, Sixth Appellate District
Writing for the Court
Thomas J. Osowik; Christine E. Mayle; Myron C. Duhart
Jurisdiction
Ohio
Decision date
October 27, 2023
Docket number
OT-22-060
Procedural posture
Ambrozy appealed her conviction for operating a motor vehicle with a prohibited alcohol concentration after the trial court granted the State's motion in limine excluding a 1998 Ohio Department of Health memorandum concerning a renewed observation period after an invalid breath-test sample.
Standard of review
The exclusion of evidence following a ruling on a motion in limine is reviewed for abuse of discretion. An abuse of discretion is conduct that is unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable.
Precedential value
Published Ohio Court of Appeals decision
Parties
Alma K. Ambrozy v. State of Ohio
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

evidenceappellate procedurestandard of reviewcriminal procedureadministrative procedure act

Practice areas

criminal procedureevidenceadministrative lawappellate procedure

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by excluding a 1998 Ohio Department of Health memorandum concerning the procedure to follow after an invalid breath-test sample.
  2. Whether exclusion of the memorandum denied Ambrozy a meaningful opportunity to present a defense concerning the accuracy and reliability of the breath-test results.

Holdings

  1. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by excluding the memorandum because it was not a statute or formally promulgated administrative regulation and was not relevant or enforceable as legal authority in the circumstances presented.
  2. Excluding the memorandum did not deprive Ambrozy of a meaningful opportunity to present a defense because she remained free to present evidence and cross-examine witnesses concerning the reliability of the DataMaster machine and the administration of the breath tests.

Key quotations

We therefore agree with the state of Ohio that a directive from a memorandum does not rise to the level of an administrative regulation, and is not enforceable. (¶ 26)
On consideration whereof, the judgment of the Ottawa County Municipal Court is hereby affirmed. (¶ 40)

Factual background

A Port Clinton officer stopped Ambrozy after observing that her vehicle's headlights and taillights were not illuminated. The officer observed slurred speech, red and glossy eyes, and an odor of alcohol; Ambrozy reported drinking four beers and failed to produce valid results on her first two breath-test attempts because she started and stopped blowing. A third DataMaster breath sample registered a blood-alcohol concentration of .137, and the State charged her under R.C. 4511.19(A)(1)(d).

Procedural history

The Ottawa County Municipal Court granted the State's oral motion in limine before trial and excluded the memorandum. Following a jury trial, Ambrozy was found guilty under R.C. 4511.19(A)(1)(d) and sentenced to 120 days in jail, with 90 days suspended, plus an alcohol dependency evaluation and a six-day driver intervention program. The Sixth District affirmed the trial court's judgment.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…

More from Ohio Ohio Court Of Appeals Sixth Appellate District