State v. Neice , 2013 Ohio 542 ( 2013 )

[Cite as State v. Neice, 2013-Ohio-542.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
PORTAGE COUNTY, OHIO
STATE OF OHIO, : OPINION
Plaintiff-Appellant, :
CASE NO. 2012-P-0064
- vs - :
TODD R. NEICE, :
Defendant-Appellee. :
Criminal Appeal from the Portage County Municipal Court, Ravenna Division, Case No.
R2011 TRC 16199.
Judgment: Reversed and remanded.
Victor V. Vigluicci, Portage County Prosecutor, and Pamela J. Holder, Assistant
Prosecutor, 241 South Chestnut Street, Ravenna, OH 44266 (For Plaintiff-Appellant).
Charles Richard Quinn, 223 Whittier Dr., Kent, OH 44240 (For Defendant-Appellee).
CYNTHIA WESTCOTT RICE, J.
{¶1} Appellant, the state of Ohio, appeals the judgment of the Portage County
Municipal Court, Ravenna Division, granting the motion to suppress of appellee, Todd
R. Neice, to exclude evidence of the results of an Intoxilyzer 8000 test. At issue is
whether the trial court erred in requiring the state to present evidence of the reliability of
the Intoxilyzer 8000 as a predicate for the admission of Neice’s breath-test results at
trial. Based on this court’s precedent in State v. Carter, 11th Dist. No. 2012-P-0027,
2012-Ohio-5583, we reverse and remand.
{¶2} On December 9, 2011, a citation was filed against Neice charging him with
driving under the influence of alcohol, in violation of R.C. 4511.19(A)(1)(a), and driving
with a prohibited blood-alcohol concentration, in violation of R.C. 4511.19(A)(1)(d). He
was also cited for a turn-signal violation, pursuant to R.C. 4511.39. Neice pled not
guilty.
{¶3} On March 6, 2012, Neice filed a motion to suppress the results of his
breath test, suggesting that the device used to test his breath was unreliable. Although
Neice did not identify the device used, it was the Intoxilyzer 8000. In response, the
state filed a brief arguing that, pursuant to State v. Vega, 12 Ohio St.3d 185 (1984), it
was not required to present evidence to establish the general reliability of the Intoxilyzer
8000 prior to the state’s introduction of Neice’s breath-test results. The state argued
that the legislature delegated to the Ohio Director of Health the authority to determine
reliable breath-testing devices, and the Supreme Court in Vega upheld this delegation.
{¶4} By its judgment, dated June 20, 2012, the trial court granted Neice’s
motion to suppress. The court found that, pursuant to its previous ruling in State v.
Johnson, Case No. R 11 TRC 4090, the state was required to produce evidence to
convince the court that the Intoxilyzer 8000 is reliable in order for its test results to be
admissible at trial. The court found that to deny Neice the opportunity to challenge the
scientific evidence of his guilt is a denial of due process. As a result, the court ordered
that the results of Neice’s breath test from the Intoxilyzer 8000 would not be admissible
at his trial. The court stated it would set the remaining charges under R.C.
4511.19(A)(1)(a) and R.C. 4511.39 for trial.
2
{¶5} The state filed a motion to stay execution of the trial court’s judgment
pending appeal, which the trial court granted. The state now appeals the trial court’s
ruling on Neice’s motion to suppress, asserting one assignment of error. Neice has not
filed a brief on appeal. For its sole assigned error, the state alleges:
{¶6} “The Portage County Municipal Court erred in permitting a general attack
on the scientific reliability of the Intoxilyzer 8000 contrary to Ohio statutes and well-
established case law.”
{¶7} In granting Neice’s motion to suppress, the trial court concluded that the
state was required to establish by expert testimony the reliability of the Intoxilyzer 8000
before Neice’s breath-test results could be admitted at trial. The state argues on
appeal, as it did in the trial court, that it was not required to present expert testimony of
the machine’s reliability due to the legislative determination in R.C. 4511.19 that breath-
testing instruments approved by the Director of Health, including the Intoxilyzer 8000,
are reliable.
{¶8} Thus, the issue before us is whether the state was required to present
expert evidence to prove that the Intoxilyzer 8000 is a reliable breath-testing instrument
as a predicate for admitting Neice’s breath-test results at trial.
{¶9} This court addressed the identical issue in Carter, supra. Based on this
court’s decision in Carter, we hold that the trial court erred in requiring the state to
produce evidence of the Intoxilyzer 8000’s reliability and in granting Neice’s motion to
suppress; further, pursuant to these erroneous rulings, the trial court erred in excluding
the results of Neice’s breath test with no evidence to overcome the presumptive
reliability of the Intoxilyzer 8000. Id. at ¶42.
3
{¶10} In light of this court’s analysis in Carter, supra, once the state has
demonstrated an approved breath-testing device was used, a defendant may make
specific challenges to the general reliability of the Intoxilyzer 8000. In this case, it is
undisputed that the Intoxilyzer 8000 is an approved device. On remand, therefore,
Neice is entitled, but has the burden of production, to specifically challenge the general
reliability of the Intoxilyzer 8000.
{¶11} For the reasons stated in this opinion, it is the judgment and order of this
court that the judgment of the Portage County Municipal Court, Ravenna Division, is
reversed, and this matter is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings as set
forth in this opinion.
TIMOTHY, P. CANNON, P.J., concurs,
THOMAS R. WRIGHT, J., dissents with Dissenting Opinion.
_______________
THOMAS R. WRIGHT, J., dissents with Dissenting Opinion.
{¶12} R.C. 4511.19(D)(1)(b) does not mandate admissibility of breath test
results derived from the Intoxilyzer 8000. Rather, that statute which, by its plain
language controls the issue in this case, vests the trial court with discretion regarding
admissibility despite approval from the director. I, therefore, respectfully dissent.
{¶13} R.C. 3701.143 empowers the director to approve breath testing devices,
and R.C. 4511.19(D)(1)(b) grants trial courts the discretion to admit the results from
approved devices without further proof of reliability when circumstances warrant.
Although some claim the contrary, nobody is correct all the time. In recognizing human
4
fallibility, the legislature had the wisdom to vest within the trial court the discretion per
R.C.4511.19(D)(1)(b) to conduct further inquiry when there is an issue as to the
reliability of an approved breath testing device before admitting the results.
{¶14} R.C. 4511.19(D)(1)(b) states that “[i]n any criminal prosecution or juvenile
court proceeding for a violation of division (A) or (B) of this section or for an equivalent
offense that is vehicle-related, the court may admit evidence on the concentration of
alcohol, drugs of abuse, controlled substances, metabolites of a controlled substance,
or a combination of them in the defendant’s whole blood, blood serum or plasma,
breath, urine, or other bodily substance at the time of the alleged violation as shown by
chemical analysis of the substance withdrawn within three hours of the time of the
alleged violation[,]” and “[t]he bodily substance withdrawn under division (D)(1)(b) of this
section shall be analyzed in accordance with methods approved by the director of
health by an individual possessing a valid permit issued by the director pursuant to
section 3701.143 of the Revised Code.” (Emphasis added.)
{¶15} The statute does not use the word “shall,” which would mandate
admission regardless of the circumstances. Rather, the statute uses the word “may.”
For purposes of statutory construction, “use of the word ‘may’ is generally construed to
make the provision in which it is contained optional, permissive, or discretionary * * *.”
Dorrian v. Scioto Conservancy Dist., 27 Ohio St.2d 102, 107 (1971); State v. Suchevits,
138 Ohio App.3d 99, 102 (11th Dist. 1999).
{¶16} In this case, the trial court exercised its discretion not to admit the breath
test absent proof from the state that the Intoxilyzer 8000 is generally reliable, a decision
consistent with the discretion it possesses under R.C.4511.19(D)(1)(b). As reliability
5
presents a threshold admissibility issue, reliability, as opposed to the weight to be
afforded any admitted evidence, is one for the trial court. Knott v Revolution Software
Inc. 181 Ohio App.3d 519, 2009-Ohio-1191, ¶45 (5th Dist.); State v. Riley, 6th Dist. No.
WD-03-076, 2007-Ohio-879, ¶27 (expert testimony must be deemed reliable before it is
deemed admissible.); Saad v. Shimano American Corp., 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10974,
*7 (N.D. Ill. 2000)(The Supreme Court has made it clear that the courts must allow into
evidence only expert testimony that meets certain threshold standards of reliability and
usefulness).
{¶17} Moreover, the determination of evidential reliability necessarily implicates
the defendant’s substantive due process rights.
{¶18} “Substantive due process, [although an] ephemeral concept, protects
specific fundamental rights of individual freedom and liberty from deprivation at the
hands of arbitrary and capricious government action. The fundamental rights protected
by substantive due process arise from the Constitution itself and have been defined as
those rights which are ‘implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.’ (* * *) While this is
admittedly a somewhat vague definition, it is generally held that an interest in liberty or
property must be impaired before the protections of substantive due process become
available.” State v. Small, 162 Ohio App.3d. 375, 2005-Ohio-3813, ¶11 (10th Dist.),
quoting Gutzwiller v. Fenik, 860 F. 2d. 1317, 1328 (6th Cir. 1989).
{¶19} However vague the conceptual parameters of one’s substantive due
process guarantees may be, the following principle is clear; “[substantive] * * * due
process is violated by the introduction of seemingly conclusive, but actually unreliable
evidence.” Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 931, fn. 10 (1983).
6
{¶20} The trial court was aware that other courts had deemed the Intoxilyzer
8000 unreliable even though it was approved. Against the backdrop, the court ordered
the state to establish the general reliability of the Intoxilyzer 8000 before admitting the
results. Given the constitutional gravity of admitting unreliable results, however, and its
statutory authority to act as gatekeeper regarding breath test results, the lower court’s
decision to require the state to produce evidence of the machines reliability was an
eminently reasonable and sound legal decision. “[A]n abuse of discretion is the trial
court’s ‘failure to exercise sound, reasonable, and legal decision-making.’” State v.
Beechler, 2d Dist. No. 09-CA-54, 2010-Ohio-1900, ¶62, quoting Black’s Law Dictionary
(8 Ed.Rev.2004) 11.
{¶21} Rather than present evidence of the general reliability of the Intoxilyzer
8000, the state took the position that the trial court could not require it to do so pursuant
to Vega and its progeny. Vega, 12 Ohio St.3d 185 (1984). I do not read Vega as
holding that under no circumstances can a trial court exercise its discretion to require
evidence of general reliability of an approved breath testing device as a condition to
admissibility.
{¶22} In Vega, the court held “* * * an accused is not denied his constitutional
right to present a defense nor is the state relieved of its burden of proving guilt beyond a
reasonable doubt where a trial judge does not permit expert testimony to attack the
reliability of intoxilyzers in general.” (Emphasis added.) Id. at 186.
{¶23} Threshold admissibility was not at issue in Vega. That is, the defendant
made no challenge to the trial court’s admission of his breath test result. Instead, after
the state presented its case and rested, the defendant attempted to present a
7
“reliability” defense by attacking intoxilyzers in general. See also State v. Vega, 5th
Dist. No. CA-1766, 1993 Ohio App LEXIS 14350, *16 (Nov.22, 1983)(Hoffman, J.,
dissenting). Unlike Vega, 12 Ohio St. 3d 185, threshold admissibility is the issue in the
case before us. Moreover, unlike Vega, our case is not about the reliability of
intoxilyzers in general. Our case is limited to whether the Intoxilyzer 8000 is reliable. In
short, the circumstances at issue in Vega were fundamentally distinguishable from
those in our case.
{¶24} Additionally, the rule in Vega does not contemplate a situation where, as
here, an approved device’s general reliability has been assessed by other courts for
both use in and out of this state and the device’s reliability has been found suspect.
See State v. Johnson, Portage County Municipal Court, January 6, 2012. Vega
expressly states that its holding does not involve a situation where there was an
assertion that there was an abuse of discretion by the director in approving the breath
testing device at issue. Vega at 187, fn. 2. Obviously, in our case if the Intoxilyzer
8000 is unreliable, approval would amount to an abuse of discretion and admission of
the test results a violation of substantive due process.
{¶25} Breath tests are “‘* * * generally recognized as being reasonably reliable
on the issue of intoxication when conducted with proper equipment and by competent
operators.’” (Emphasis added.) Vega at 186, quoting Westerville v. Cunningham, 15
Ohio St.2d 121, 128(1968). Thus, the central issue as presented in the case before us,
does the Intoxilyzer 8000 qualify as “proper equipment”? The answer is “yes” if it is
generally reliable and “no” if it is not. This is a query, however, that, under Ohio law, a
trial court is entitled to resolve pursuant to R.C. 4511.19(D)(1)(b).
8
{¶26} In this case, the trial court exercised its discretion to safeguard the
defendant’s right to substantive due process by merely requiring the state to show the
Intoxilyzer 8000 is generally reliable. Under the circumstances, this decision was sound
and reasonable. This is particularly true in light of the fact that a trial court is vested
with broad discretion in the admission or exclusion of evidence and in recognition that it
has inherent power to exclude or strike evidence on its own motion. Caroll v Caroll, 7th
Dist. No. 89-C-1, 1990 Ohio App. LEXIS 1339, *8 (April 5, 1990); Neil v. Hamilton
County, 87 Ohio App.3d 670; Oakbrook Realty Corp. v. Blout, 48 Ohio App.3d 69, 70
(10th Dist. 1988).
{¶27} Given the foregoing point, there is no reason to remand this case to the
trial court based upon perceived inadequacies in the motion to suppress. The trial court
made it abundantly clear that it would not admit the test results absent proof of reliability
of the Intoxilyzer 8000. Requiring the proponent to establish the reliability of scientific
evidence is something that a trial court may require as previously discussed. The state
was well aware of what the trial court required when it ordered it to produce evidence of
the Intoxilyzer 8000’s reliability, independent and irrespective of the contents of the
motion to suppress. Accordingly, there is no procedural due process violation of the
state’s right to notice and an opportunity to be heard. The trial court’s order was
unambiguous and an exercise of the sound discretion as the gatekeeper of breath test
result admissibility.
{¶28} When an appellate court [**14] is reviewing a pure issue of law, “the mere
fact that the reviewing court would decide the issue differently is enough to find error (of
course, not all errors are reversible. Some are harmless; others are not preserved for
9
appellate review). By contrast, where the issue on review has been confined to the
discretion of the trial court, the mere fact that the reviewing court would have reached a
different result is not enough, without more, to find error.” Sertz v. Sertz, 11th Dist. No.
2011-L-063, quoting Beechler, 2010-Ohio-1900 at ¶67.
{¶29} This appeal is centered around a discretionary decision made by the trial
court. As I find the court’s decision not only reasonable, but constitutionally astute, I
would affirm the trial court’s exclusion of the breath test in light of the state’s refusal to
present evidence on the issue.
10