Fourth District confirms that, for an OVI based on a prescription medication, the State must show a nexus between the prescription and impairment through "(1) the testimony of an expert who is familiar with the potential side effects of the medication" or (2) the testimony of a layperson (such as a friend or family member) who witnesses the effect of the particular drug on the defendant-driver."

State v. Hammond, 2016 Ohio 2753 (4th Dist).

http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/4/2016/2016-Ohio-2753.pdf

April 22, 2016

When Hammond was pulled over for going 52 in a 40, the officer suspected impairment and therefore conduct field sobriety tests which seemed to confirm his suspicion. As a result, a urine test was given which ultimately showed the presence of certain prescription medications. During trial, the State did not present any expert testimony regarding the potential side effects of the medications, but rather relied upon the officer's testimony that he believed the prescriptions impaired Hammond's ability to drive. Hammond's wife also testified that the prescriptions did not impair his ability to drive.

The Fourth District reviewed that the State is required to present evidence of a nexus between the prescription and impairment, such that the prescription actually affects the person or that the prescription has the potential to impair the person's judgment or reflexes. The State can do this through, "(1) the testimony of an expert who is familiar with the potential side effects of the medication" or (2) the testimony "of a layperson (such as a friend or family member) who witnesses the effect of the particular drug on the defendant-driver." Because the State did neither in this case, the Fourth District reversed the judgment of the trial court.