
    City of Columbus, Appellant, v. Samuels, Appellee.
    (No. 6283
    Decided March 15, 1960.)
    
      Mr. Russell Leach, city attorney, Mr. Bernard T. Ghupka and Mr. E. Edgar Barkeloo, for appellant.
    
      Mr. Walter W. Grelle, Jr., for appellee.
   McLaughlin, J.

This case originated in the Columbus Municipal Court. Mr. Samuels was charged, tried, found guilty and sentenced for operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol. He then appealed to the Court of Common Pleas, where his conviction was reversed. The city of Columbus appeals to this court on questions of law. No assignment of error was made. We have gleaned from the brief that it is sought to have the reversal set aside and the conviction affirmed.

The only evidence of record is the testimony of Police Officer Oallagan, in substance as follows: He arrived at the scene of an accident at 6:25 p. m.; lie observed a Bnick car parked at tbe curb; he obtained tbe license number ‘ ‘ on tbat Packard tbat was involved”; be found a piece of bub-cap chrome and some blue paint rubbed onto tbe Buick; while in tbe process of investigating tbe accident be received a radio call from police headquarters to go to tbe home of Mr. Samuels, and, upon arrival there, be found Mr. Samuels outside; be checked tbe license number, tbe chrome strip and tbe spot of paint on a Packard “parked in tbe rear yard,” which items of evidence checked with those obtained earlier at tbe scene; Mr. Samuels admitted driving tbe car on St. Clair, and submitted a urinalysis of .36.

Over objection, tbe police officer was allowed to give bis expert opinion:

“Q. Now, Officer, based upon your experience and your observation of tbe defendant during tbe time you were with him tbat day do you have any opinion whether or not be was under tbe influence of alcohol?
“Objection.
‘ ‘ Overruled.
“A. I have.
“Q. "What is tbat opinion? A. In my opinion be was under tbe influence of alcohol.”

Tbe officer testified further tbat tbe scene of tbe accident was in Columbus, Ohio. Then tbe city rested its case.

Counsel for Mr. Samuels then moved for dismissal. The trial court overruled tbe motion. Mr. Samuels neither took tbe stand nor offered any evidence. Motion to dismiss was again overruled. Whereupon be was found guilty and sentenced.

Upon appeal to tbe Court of Common Pleas, tbe conviction was reversed. It is apparent tbat tbe evidence was there weighed and found wanting. A criminal conviction cannot be reversed unless it is clearly and manifestly against tbe weight of tbe evidence, as a matter of law.

Tbe judgment of reversal now becomes tbe subject of review by this court. Regardless of any reason given by tbe Court of Common Pleas, we are here bound to search tbe record, and if tbe judgment of reversal is right for any reason it. is our duty to affirm it.

Our search of the record discloses some glaring insufficiencies. The only witness was the arresting police officer. He did not see Mr. Samuels operate his car. He did not see him at the scene. He says that Mr. Samuels admitted that “he was driving his car on St. Clair.” No definite time was fixed. This statement could be regarded as either an admission against interest or an extra-judicial confession, and it is still insufficient as a matter of law to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Samuels was operating his car at the time and place charged.

A urinalysis was taken, at least an hour and a half after the arrest. The officer was permitted to testify that the specimen tested .36. There was no evidence before the trial court as to what .36 means.. Over objection, the officer was permitted to give his opinion that “he was under the influence of alcohol.” Again no time was fixed. The objection should have been sustained. But the urinalysis and the officer’s opinion, or either, are insufficient as a matter of law, to prove that Mr. Samuels was operating his car while under the influence of alcohol at the time and place charged. We here adopt the words of Bartlett, J., in City of Columbus v. Glover, 73 Ohio Law Abs., 430, at page 431:

“It is a serious offense to drive a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol, in fact such conduct is dangerous.
“Yet we must not forget that we are not living in a Police State, but under a constitutional form of government, including a Bill of Rights, sacred to all of us. It is very dangerous to ignore those rights.”

The judgment of reversal is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Bryant, P. J., and Duffy, J., concur.

McLaughlin, J., of the Fifth Appellate District, sitting by designation in the Tenth Appellate District.  