Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

18 Ohio St. 3d 30

State v. Boyd

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided June 26, 1985

Ohio Supreme Court · decided 1985-06-26

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“In order to sustain a conviction under R.C. 4511.19 (A)(3), there must be proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was operating a vehicle within this state and that at the time he had a concentration of ten-hundredths of one gram or more by weight of alcohol per two hundred ten liters of his breath. The relevant evidence is limited to that evidence having any tendency to make the existence of either or both of these facts more probable or less probable.”

quoted by 3 later decisions, including State v. Obhof, 07ap-324 (10-23-2007), State v. Simmons

“"(a) Operation Generally. No person shall operate any vehicle within the Municipality, if any of the following apply: “(1) The person is under the influence of alcohol, a drug of abuse, or alcohol and a drug of abuse; "(2) The person has a concentration of ten-hundredths of one percent (0.10%) or more by weight of alcohol in his blood; “(3) The person has a concentration of ten-hundredths of one percent (0.10) of one gram or more by weight of alcohol per 210 liters of his breath; “(4) The person has a concentration of fourteen-hundredths (0.14) of one gram or more by weight of alcohol per 100 milliliters of his urine. (ORC 4511.19)’’”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 76 Ohio App. 3d 798 - State v. Porter

Relies on State v. Nolton

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1985-06-26

How this case has been cited

Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently March 2022 · most notably City of Columbus v. Taylor (1988), 75 Ohio App. 3d 63 - State v. Jenkins (1991)

29 state decisions

11019851990200020102020decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

O’Neill, J.

¶1R.C. 4511.19(A)(3) reads, in pertinent part, as follows:

“(A) No person shall operate any vehicle, streetcar, or trackless trolley within this state if any of the following apply: …
“(3) The person has a concentration of ten-hundredths of one gram or more by weight of alcohol per two hundred ten liters of his breath;”

¶2If the state is to be successful in the prosecution of a person charged with the violation of the preceding section, the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt each of the essential elements of the crime. State v. Nolton (1969), 19 Ohio St. 2d 133 [48 O.O.2d 119]. Accordingly, in order to sustain a conviction under R.C. 4511.19(A)(3), there must be proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellee was operating a vehicle within this state and that at the time he had a concentration of ten-hundredths of one gram or more by weight of alcohol per two hundred ten liters of his breath.

¶3These two facts are the only facts of consequence to the case. Thus, the relevant evidence is limited to that evidence having any tendency to make the existence of either or both of those two facts more probable or less probable. Standing alone, appellee’s appearance, manner of speech and walking, and lack of any symptoms of intoxication are not relevant evidence and, therefore, not admissible.

¶4The judgment of the court of appeals is reversed.

¶5Judgment reversed.

Celebrezze, C.J., Holmes, C. Brown, Douglas and Wright, JJ., concur.Locher, J., concurs in judgment only.O’Neill, J., of the Seventh Appellate District, sitting for Sweeney, J.
/18/ohiost3d/30 · .json · Public domain