Summary
In Columbus v. Hayes (1967), 9 Ohio App.2d 38, this court held that the punishment for the offense of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol is not "such as to bring this case within constitutional limitations on custodial interrogation."
Summary of this case from State v. TwittyOpinion
No. 8457
Decided January 3, 1967.
Criminal procedure — Custodial interrogation — Statements obtained — Admissibility in evidence — Misdemeanors — Denial of counsel — Interrogation against will — Factors in determining whether statements involuntary.
1. The punishment which may be imposed for the offense of operating a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol is not, at present, sufficient to bring that offense within the constitutional limitations on custodial interrogation under Miranda v. Arizona (1966), 384 U.S. 436.
2. The denial of the right to counsel, interrogation against the will of the accused, and similar practices are proper factors in determining whether a statement is involuntary and entitled to be excluded on that ground.
APPEAL: Court of Appeals for Franklin County.
Mr. John C. Young, city attorney, Mr. Gordon L. Sroufe and Mr. J. Larry Lacksen, for appellee.
Mr. Joseph H. Hans, for appellant.
This is an appeal from the Municipal Court of Columbus. Appellant was convicted of operating a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol.
The first assignment of error relates to the trial court's refusal to suppress test results and testimony as to statements of appellant. Reliance is placed on Miranda v. Arizona (1966), 384 U.S. 436, 16 L. Ed. 2d 694, 86 S. Ct. 1602. In our opinion, the punishment for the offense charged is not now such as to bring this case within constitutional limitations on custodial interrogation. Of course, the denial of the right to counsel, interrogation against the will of the accused, and similar practices are proper factors in determining whether a statement is involuntary and entitled to be excluded on that ground. However, in the present case, we find no error in admitting the evidence.
The second assignment relates to exclusion of questioning as to a presumption contained in the Columbus ordinance. We find no prejudicial error.
The judgment of the Municipal Court will be affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
DUFFY, DUFFEY and TROOP, JJ., concur.