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

  1. Schmerber v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
  2. South Dakota v. NevilleSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
  3. City of Westerville v. CunninghamOhio Supreme Court · 1968
  4. State v. StarnesOhio Supreme Court · 1970
  5. City of Columbus v. MaxeyOhio Court of Appeals · 1988

3Cited by50 opinions

  1. State v. DurnwaldOhio Court of Appeals · 2005
  2. State v. SemenchukOhio Court of Appeals · 1997
  3. State v. SiminOhio Court of Appeals · 2012
  4. State v. OriansOhio Court of Appeals · 2008
  5. State v. FilipOhio Court of Appeals · 2017

45 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API