State v. Crace’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 state decisions

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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “R.C. 4511.19(D)(1)(b) provides that the court may admit evidence as shown by a chemical analysis of a bodily substance 'withdrawn within three hours of the time of the alleged violation.' The rationale for this requirement is to have a sample closely related in time as (circumstantial) evidence of the concentration at the time of operation. If the sample is taken within that time, no expert testimony is required to relate back to the time of operation. A later test may still be admissible with expert testimony to calculate, by retrograde extrapolation, the concentration at the time of operation. Newark v. Lucas, 40 Ohio St.3d 100 , 532 N.E.2d 130 (1988); State v. Hassler, 115 Ohio St.3d 322 , 875 N.E.2d 46 (2007). Thus, the reason for the rule is the relevance and reliability of the chemical test result.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Ruppert