State v. Skimmerhorn
Ohio Court of Appeals
1Opinion of the Court
Mark P. Painter, Judge.
{¶ 1} The state appeals the trial court’s granting of defendant-appellee Brandon Skimmerhorn’s suppression motion. We affirm.
{¶ 2} The state argues that the batch-and-bottle affidavit, necessary to admit the intoxilyzer result in a prosecution for driving with a prohibited alcohol level, was self-authenticating and admissible under the Ohio Rules of Evidence. We hold that the trial court did not err in granting the motion to suppress and that the document submitted by the state was not admissible under the Evidence Rules. Evid.R. 902(4), in allowing public records to be…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- State v. BurnsideOhio Supreme Court · 2003
- State v. BostonOhio Supreme Court · 1989
- State v. PlummerOhio Supreme Court · 1986
- City of Cincinnati v. SandOhio Supreme Court · 1975
- State v. EasterOhio Court of Appeals · 1991
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- NTL Collegiate Student Loan Trust-1, A Delaware Statutory Trust v. PayneOhio Court of Appeals · 2020
- State v. PhillipsOhio Court of Appeals · 2014