State v. Johnson

In State v. Johnson (2000), 137 Ohio App.3d 847, 850, 739 N.E.2d 1249, a defendant's motion to suppress, which, among other things, asserted a failure to comply with the refrigeration requirement of Ohio Adm. Code 3701-53-04(C) stated, "the solution used to calibrate the testing instrument was invalid and not properly maintained in accordance with OAC 3701-53-04(C)." Id. at 854. The court found that, even though the section of the motion alleging a violation of the refrigeration requirement was general, it was specific enough under State v. Shindler to put the State on notice that it must demonstrate substantial compliance with that section of the statute. Id. at 851. The court further found that the burden on the State to show substantial compliance was minimal and would have been satisfied with basic testimony that the solution was properly maintained, but that the State failed to meet this burden because it presented no evidence or testimony as to this refrigeration requirement. Id. at 854.