Cleveland v. Cunningham

Citations

• 2018 Ohio 844

Syllabus

OVI field sobriety tests motion to suppress findings of fact and conclusions of law Crim.R. 12(F) R.C. 4511.19(D)(4) NHTSA standards substantial compliance police officer's observations cross examination relevance confrontation abuse of discretion. Appellant's request during the morning of trial for a \written ruling\ does not amount to a timely request for findings and conclusions. Because the record contained a sufficient basis for review, the appellant was not prejudiced by the court's failure to issue findings and conclusions, and we are able to address the merits of her claims. The trial court properly considered the testimony of the arresting police officers where such testimony consisted of the officers' observations made during the appellant's performance during the field sobriety tests. Where the city presented competent testimony concerning the NHTSA standards and the officer testified as to numerous instructions he gave to the appellant in administering the walk and turn test, the trial court did not err in finding substantial compliance. The results of the walk and turn test were therefore properly admitted. The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it prohibited cross examination regarding the administration of the suppressed HGN test, and the appellant was not deprived of her right of confrontation.