12 Ohio App. 3d 87 - State v. Butcher’s Empirical Analysis
1983
Citation profile
4
cited by 4 later decisions
2
states following
February 1987
most recently cited
4 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on State v. Logan · State v. Mitchell · 7 Ohio App. 3d 113 - State v. Brown · 70 Ohio App. 2d 20 - State v. Moralevitz
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The DWI offense requires proof of the presence of alcohol in the defendant's body—either through a chemical analysis of his blood, breath or urine (see R.C. 4511.19[A][2], [3] and [4] [driving while under the influence provisions]), or at least sufficient proof that he was under the influence of alcohol while driving (see R.C. 4511.19[A][1]). On the other hand, R.C. 4511.202 [driving without being in reasonable control of a vehicle] requires evidence that the defendant was not in reasonable control of his vehicle, which does not entail proof that he was intoxicated. One can easily imagine many cases in which a defendant, while completely sober, nevertheless drives his car in such a manner that he cannot be said to be in reasonable control of it. Since the presence of alcohol in the defendant's system is not an element of the OMVRC offense [driving without being in reasonable control], his physical condition is not in issue, as it necessarily must be when one is charged with DWI under R.C. 4511.19(A)(3) [breath analysis method]. Being under the influence of alcohol or controlled substances, or having a specified alcohol content, as shown through a particular chemical test, is not a fact tending to show a violation of R.C. 4511.202. Only proof of facts going to the unreasonable manner in which the defendant operates his vehicle is sufficient to sustain a conviction under that statute. Conversely, evidence which would be sufficient to convict a defendant of the OMVRC offense wou”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.