Skip to main content
Mark Alan Deters

Mark Deters’s Legal Cases

10 total

  • State v. A.R.

    Practice Area:
    DUI & DWI
    Date:
    Aug 06, 2010
    Outcome:
    Jury Trial - NOT-GUILTY!
    Description:
    Client stopped for weaving and based on a 9-1-1 call that her vehicle was all over the road. Officer testified that client failed field sobriety tests, had slurred speech, glassy/bloodshot eyes, etc. Client admitted to the officer that she drank beer and took prescription medication.
  • State v. Syx

    Practice Area:
    DUI & DWI
    Date:
    Dec 03, 2010
    Outcome:
    REVERSED JURY VERDICT - CLIENT GRANTED NEW TRIAL!
    Description:
    DUI Jury Verdict REVERSED at the Second District Court of Appeals. Defendant granted a NEW TRIAL! Trial court erred in permitting results of blood alcohol test to be introduced in evidence, over objection, through the testimony of someone other than the person who conducted the test. Although the admissibility of the blood alcohol test result had been established as a result of a previous suppression motion and hearing, the right of confrontation under Crawford v. Washington (2004), 541 U.S. 36, 68, 124 S.Ct. 1354, 158 L.Ed.2d 177, includes not merely the right to confront the relevant witness over the issue of the admissibility of a test result, but also the right to confront the relevant witness in the presence of the jury for the purpose of arguing the issues of the proper credibility and weight to be given to the test result. Because the trial court should not have allowed the blood alcohol test to have been introduced in evidence, it also erred in allowing an expert witness to testify concerning the effects that a blood alcohol concentration of 0.11% would have upon the average person, since the predicate fact – that the defendant had a blood alcohol concentration of 0.11% – had not been properly established. State offered evidence of defendant’s excessive speeding – 80 miles per hour in a 35 miles-per-hour zone. Excessive speeding is material to a charge of OMVI, since it supports an inference of impaired driving. Therefore, the defendant could properly offer the testimony of an expert to show that, on the basis of facts for which there was evidence at trial, the defendant could not possibly have been driving that fast. The trial court erred by excluding this evidence. Reversed and Remanded. http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/2/2010/2010-ohio-5880.pdf
  • United States of America vs. W.N.

    Practice Area:
    DUI & DWI
    Date:
    Mar 01, 2011
    Outcome:
    CASE DISMISSED!
    Description:
    Client stopped for red light, failure to control, and reckless operation. Client asked to perform field sobriety tests. Before client had a chance to perform the first test, the officer arrested him for a DUI, OVI. Officer told the client he was too impaired to perform the tests, because client had slipped on a wet sidewalk during the rain. Refused Breath test. CASE DISMISSED!
  • State vs. T.W.

    Practice Area:
    DUI & DWI
    Outcome:
    REDUCED to REASONABLE CONTROL!
    Description:
    Client, a Truck Driver, who holds a Commercial Driver's License. Stopped by police for losing control of his truck in the snow. Admitted to drinking 10 beers. Failed field sobriety tests. Refused Breath Test. Case reduced to reasonable control (2 point violation). NO JAIL! NO LICENSE SUSPENSION!
  • State v. M.L.

    Practice Area:
    DUI & DWI
    Date:
    Mar 25, 2011
    Outcome:
    NOT-GUILTY!
    Description:
    DUI (Refusal of Breath Test). Stopped for Failing to use his turn signal, Expired Plates, and Crossing over the Center Line (Marked Lanes). Failed all of the Field Sobriety tests. Admitted to drinking 4 beers one hour prior to being stopped by police.
  • State v. K.J.

    Practice Area:
    Criminal Defense
    Date:
    Jul 01, 2011
    Outcome:
    Police Did Not Have Right to Stop Client! CASE DISMISSED
    Description:
    Client arrested for Disorderly Conduct While Inoxicated, and Resisting Arrest. Motion to Suppress was filed, and it went to a full motion to suppress hearing. Judge determined that the Police Officer did not have the legal right to stop the client in the first place! Entire Case DISMISSED!
  • State v. J.H.

    Practice Area:
    Domestic Violence
    Date:
    Jun 01, 2011
    Outcome:
    NOT-GUILTY! - Jury Verdict!
    Description:
    Client arrested and Indicted for Felony Domestic Violence. Client accused of punching pregnant ex-girlfriend in the stomach. Client was innocent! Case proceeded to JURY TRIAL. OUTCOME: Jury found client NOT-GUILTY! within 5 minutes
  • State v. D.B.

    Practice Area:
    DUI & DWI
    Date:
    Oct 01, 2011
    Outcome:
    REDUCED to Reckless Operation - NO FURTHER LICENSE SUSPENSION!!!
    Description:
    Fire-Fighter arrested for 2nd Offense OVI (DUI). Subject to 2 year license suspension for REFUSAL of breath test. Took Portable Breath Test and registered .139% Failed Field Sobriety Tests. A conviction for OVI would have cost him his CAREER! Any further license suspension would have cost him his CAREER! He was due to be TERMINATED! Filed Motion to Suppress Evidence, because the Ohio State Trooper did not have a valid reason to stop him in the first place; the field sobriety tests were not performed and administered in accordance with the officer's training; and the Trooper did not have sufficient probable cause to arrest.
  • State v. T.A.

    Practice Area:
    Criminal Defense
    Date:
    Oct 31, 2012
    Outcome:
    MOTION TO SUPPRESS SUSTAINED
    Description:
    Client Arrested for Underage Consumption of Alcohol. Police improperly questioned Client.
  • State v. E.O.

    Practice Area:
    DUI & DWI
    Date:
    Jan 24, 2013
    Outcome:
    CASE REDUCED TO PHYSICAL CONTROL - NO JAIL!
    Description:
    Client (Engineer) arrested for OVI (.170 BAC). Almost caused an accident. This was the client's 2nd OVI arrest in 3 years. Prior case, with a different attorney, and client pled guilty to OVI. Thus, Client was facing a 2nd OVI (HIGH TIER) within 6 yrs. Very stiff MINIMUM penalties.