State v. Lautzenheiser

5 Citing cases

  1. State v. Lindsey

    2009 Ohio 4124 (Ohio Ct. App. 2009)   Cited 2 times

    {¶ 28} Further, the Third District Court of Appeals found plain error in the absence of objection when the trial court dismissed an action on the defendant's oral motion to dismiss, a motion that asserted two distinct legal theories such that it was inadequate to put the state on notice of its basis. State v. Lautzenheiser (1991), 77 Ohio App.3d 461, 602 N.E.2d 705. In reversing and remanding the matter for a reinstatement of the charges, the Third District found a "total disregard for the proper procedure," such that the "prosecutor did not have a fair chance to present his case on the merits.

  2. Dayton v. Dabney

    99 Ohio App. 3d 32 (Ohio Ct. App. 1994)   Cited 18 times
    In Dabney, the court concluded that the trial court "interjecting a new issue which was not supported by any evidence whatsoever, and basing its decision to suppress the evidence on th[at] new issue, without giving the city the opportunity to present evidence on the issue" "was prejudicial error to the city."

    The decision by the trial court as well as the manner it placed the issue of the testing officer's qualifications before the prosecution is a complete departure from any notion of fairness or justice. See State v. Lautzenheiser (Van Wert Cty., 1991) 77 Ohio App.3d 461 [ 602 N.E.2d 705]."

  3. State v. Wallace

    986 N.E.2d 498 (Ohio Ct. App. 2012)   Cited 10 times

    {¶ 21} Appellant cites a number of inapposite cases in which a trial court incorrectly suppressed evidence even though the matter being decided was never raised in a manner calculated to give the prosecutor adequate notice or to allow for a proper response. State v. Lautzenheiser, 77 Ohio App.3d 461, 602 N.E.2d 705 (3d Dist.1991); State v. Hooker, 64 Ohio App.3d 631, 582 N.E.2d 636 (6th Dist.1989). In the instant cases, though, the state has not been surprised or denied due process in defending against the motions to suppress.

  4. State v. Hill

    2005 Ohio 3155 (Ohio Ct. App. 2005)

    Clearly defendant could not have indicated what of the state's evidence should be suppressed when the state had failed to inform him until one hour before trial just what the evidence was. {¶ 16}State v. Lautzenheiser (1991), 77 Ohio App.3d 461 has been cited to support the view that the motion was fatally deficient. It is true that in Lautzenheiser the Third Appellate District noted that the motion failed to apprise the state and the court of either the evidence sought to be suppressed or the law upon which the motion relied and thus the state was prevented from preparing an adequate response at the suppression hearing. The court reversed, however, because of numerous errors, not solely the deficiencies in the motion itself.

  5. State v. Mixner

    Case No. CA2001-07-074 (Ohio Ct. App. Jan. 22, 2002)   Cited 6 times

    The prosecution must know what issues are contested prior to the hearing in order to be prepared with the necessary evidence, witnesses and questioning to defend against the motion. See Shindler, 70 Ohio St.3d at 58; see, also, Dayton v. Dabeny (1994), 99 Ohio App.3d 32; State v. Lautzenheiser (1991), 71 Ohio App.3d 461, 464. In this case, although Mixner filed a written motion to suppress, the motion did not raise the issue of the legality of the stop of Mixner's vehicle.