The victim's intoxication, alone, is not necessarily "substantial impairment." State v. Hansing, 2019-Ohio-739, 132 N.E.3d 252, ¶ 14 (9th Dist.) ("we cannot say that every instance of intoxication equates with substantial impairment").
The victim’s intoxication, alone, is not necessarily "substantial impairment." State v. Hansing, 2019-Ohio-739, 132 N.E.3d 252, ¶ 14 (9th Dist.) ("we cannot say that every instance of intoxication equates with substantial impairment"). And even if it is proved that the person’s level of intoxication amounted to substantial impairment, that does not end the relevant inquiry, because the state must also produce legally sufficient evidence that the offender knew of the substantial impairment, not just that the victim was intoxicated.
Of course, not every instance of alcohol consumption or intoxication will rise to the level of substantial impairment. State v. Harris, 9th Dist. Summit No. 29583, 2020-Ohio-4365, ¶ 7, citing State v. Hansing, 2019-Ohio-739, 132 N.E.3d 252, ¶ 13 (9th Dist.).
The victim's own testimony may be sufficient to establish substantial impairment. Id. at ¶ 45, citing State v. Hansing, 2019-Ohio-739, 132 N.E.3d 252, ¶ 13 (9th Dist.), citing State v. Dasen, 9th Dist. Summit No. 28172, 2017-Ohio-5556, ¶ 19.
" Doss , 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 88443, 2008-Ohio-449, at ¶ 18. See alsoState v. Hansing , 2019-Ohio-739, 132 N.E.3d 252, ¶ 14 (9th Dist.) (not every instance of intoxication equates with substantial impairment) and State v. Jenkins , 2d Dist. Greene No. 2015-CA-6, 2015-Ohio-5167, 2015 WL 8552081, ¶ 27. {¶45} Moreover, "substantial impairment does not have to be proven by expert medical testimony; rather, it can be shown to exist by the testimony of people who have interacted with the victim."