Legal Opinion
City of Maumee v. Anistik
Ohio Supreme Court
Decided May 25, 1994No. 93-981PublishedCited by 50 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtDouglas, J.
The sole issue before this court is whether the jury instruction given by the trial judge regarding appellee’s refusal to take a chemical test of her breath was improper and prejudicial to appellee. The text of the instruction objected to by appellee’s counsel at trial is as follows:
“There’s been evidence in this case indicating that the defendant Pamela Anistik was asked to submit to a chemical analysis of her breath to determine the concentration of alcohol in her system. While an individual has a right under the laws of the State, as I explained to you before, to refuse to submit to a…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Schmerber v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- South Dakota v. NevilleSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
- City of Westerville v. CunninghamOhio Supreme Court · 1968
- State v. StarnesOhio Supreme Court · 1970
- City of Columbus v. MaxeyOhio Court of Appeals · 1988
3Cited by50 opinions
- State v. DurnwaldOhio Court of Appeals · 2005
- State v. SemenchukOhio Court of Appeals · 1997
- State v. SiminOhio Court of Appeals · 2012
- State v. OriansOhio Court of Appeals · 2008
- State v. FilipOhio Court of Appeals · 2017
45 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.