49 Ohio App. 2d 104 - State v. Brown’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The prosecutor (upon direct examination of Sgt. Holland of the Ohio State Highway Patrol, a licensed operator), asked that patrol sergeant if he was familiar with all the regulations and methods approved by the state Director of Health regarding the breathalyzer. He replied that he was, and that he conducted the breath test in the case in accordance with those regulations and methods. Defense counsel’s objection to that testimony was overruled. “We agree with the trial court that at that point those two broad, general questions and answers were a sufficient compliance with our holding in State v. Jones (1973), 37 Ohio App. 2d 127 [ 66 O.O.2d 287 ]. If believed by the jury, by the required degree of proof, it is sufficient to sustain a conviction. However, if by cross-examination, or otherwise, the defense places such compliance in issue, it then is incumbent upon the state, in order to maintain its burden of proof, to offer the”

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