State v. Nicholson

In State v. Nicholson, 12th Dist. No. CA2003-10-106, 2004 Ohio 6666, the defendant also used a "shotgun" motion to allege over fifteen violations of the Ohio Adm. Code, also including a violation of the refrigeration requirement. Id. at fn. 1. The court found the motion sufficiently particular to shift the burden of showing substantial compliance to the State, but the court found that, despite specific allegations of code section violations, the motion was only a general challenge to whether the machine was functioning properly and whether the instrument check was done on a weekly basis. Id. at P12. Based on this position, the court found the State had met its burden with only general testimony as to the functioning and testing of the machine, without testimony evidencing substantial compliance with the code sections specifically alleged to have been violated, including the refrigeration requirement. Id. at P15.