from Marion County Municipal Court Trial Court No. TRC
Witkin for Appellant.
Stephen E. Chaffin for Appellee.
Defendant-appellant, Debra Heimberger
("Heimberger"), appeals the October 17, 2017
judgment of the Marion County Municipal Court of her
conviction of OVI, in violation of R.C. 4511.19(A)(1)(a), a
misdemeanor of the first degree.
and Procedural History
This appeal stems from the events that occurred on the
morning of April 14, 2017, when Heimberger was cited for
operating a vehicle while under the influence, or drug of
abuse, in violation of R.C. 4511.19(A)(1)(a), and for failure
to drive in marked lanes, in violation of R.C. 4511.33.
Heimberger entered pleas of not guilty to both charges and
the matter was set for trial.
Prior to trial, Heimberger filed a motion to suppress the
evidence obtained as a result of the traffic stop. In her
motion, Heimberger argued: that there was no lawful cause for
the stop; that the field sobriety tests were not administered
in substantial compliance with the standards of the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration; and that her
statements were obtained in violation of her Fifth Amendment
rights. Following an evidentiary hearing on the motion, the
trial court denied the request concluding: that Trooper
Overly "had probable cause to stop the Defendant; that
the Walk and Turn Standardized Field Sobriety Test was
administered in substantial compliance with the NHTSA
standards; that the Defendant was not in custody pertaining
to arrest but rather for safety purposes and as part of the
investigation; and that there was probable cause to arrest
the Defendant considering the totality of the
circumstances". (Doc. 34).
The case proceeded to a jury trial in the trial court on
October 11, 2017, whereupon a jury convicted Heimberger of
operating a vehicle while under the influence of a drug of
abuse. Contemporaneously, the trial court dismissed
Heimberger's marked lanes violation charge.
On October 17, 2017, the trial court sentenced Heimberger to
30 days in jail, suspending 27 days. It is from this entry
that Heimberger appeals, presenting the following assignments
of error for our review.
OF ERROR NO. I
TRIAL COURT IMPROPERLY EXCLUDED EXPERT TESTIMONY FROM
OF ERROR NO. II
TRIAL COURT IMPROPERLY EXCLUDED LAY WITNESS TESTIMONY FROM
OF ERROR NO. III
TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING REASONABLE SUSPICION AT THE TIME
THAT IS [SIC] THE TROOPER INITIATED THE TRAFFIC
OF ERROR NO. IV
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT'S STATEMENTS REGARDING HER USE OF
MEDICATIONS SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED AS HAVING BEEN
GATHERED IN VIOLATION OF HER FIFTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS.
OF ERROR NO. V
FINDING OF THE JURY THAT DEFENDANT-APPELLANT VIOLATED R.C.
4511.19 BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT WAS BEYOND THE MANIFEST
WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE.
Due to the nature of Heimberger's assignments of error,