¶1I must respectfully dissent. While I agree with the majority that the blood test results were improperly admitted, I do not agree that appellant's conviction should be sustained. It is difficult to conclude that appellant was not prejudiced by the disclosure of the test results to the jury. There is little doubt that the jury relied upon the test results to find that appellant was driving under the influence. In the interests of fairness and justice, the proper procedure would be to remand the case to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with our opinion. See State v. French (1995), 72 Ohio St.3d 446, 452,650 N.E.2d 887, 892. It is better to have a jury decide that, based upon the properly admitted evidence, appellant was guilty of violating Mason City Ordinances 333.01 (A)(1). *601
123 Ohio App. 3d 593
704 N.E.2d 1260
Mason v. Murphy
Decided October 13, 1997
Ohio Court of Appeals · decided 1997-10-13
Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently March 2004
5 state decisions
Relies on State v. French
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1997-10-13
View the full empirical analysis of this case →