Ohio DUI conviction reversed based on bad jury instruction
A really bad jury instruction in an Ohio DUI case resulted in the reversal of the conviction because the jury was essentially told that it was reasonable to infer the defendant’s consciousness of guilt based on his refusal to take the test, even though a reasonable fact finder could have drawn a different conclusion based on the evidence.
The Cite: Ohio v. Orians, Court of Appeals of Ohio, Decided December 1, 2008.
Quotes from the opinion:
Defendant-Appellant, Kevin J. Orians, appeals the judgment of the Tiffin Municipal Court convicting him of operating a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol. On appeal, Orians contends that the trial court erred in its special instruction to the jury regarding his refusal to submit to a chemical test. Orians argues that the trial court's special instruction was not neutral and was slanted in favor of the prosecution. Based upon the following, we reverse the judgment of the trial court.
In his sole assignment of error, Orians argues that the trial court's instruction to the jury regarding his refusal to submit to a chemical test was erroneous because it was not neutral and was slanted in favor of the prosecution. Specifically, Orians contends that the word "intoxication" should not have been used in the instruction; that the instruction unfairly characterized breath alcohol tests as "reasonably reliable"; and, that the instruction suggested that Orians gave no reason for his test refusal, even after being asked. We agree that the word "intoxication" should not have been used in the instruction, and that the instruction prejudicially suggested that Orians gave no reason for his refusal.
Additionally, the trial court's instruction charged the jury that it was reasonable to infer that a defendant's refusal of a chemical test evinced consciousness of guilt "especially where he is asked his reason for such refusal and he gives no reason which would indicate that his refusal had no relation to such consciousness of guilt."
Because the trial court here failed to correctly and clearly state the law of the case, failed to provide a neutral instruction, and ignored the Supreme Court's holding in Anistik, we find that the trial court abused its discretion.
My Comments: Good ruling. This trial judge should not have asserted his opinion into the case, and by adopting this jury instruction at least gave the impression that he did.
Practice Tip: The attorney who appealed this case was smart in only focusing on the one good issue instead of throwing in the kitchen sink. I always think it is better to concentrate an argument on one potential winner rather than distract and annoy the bench with side arguments that are not likely to produce results.
http://www.duilawblog.com/admin/trackback/99249
