The Supreme Court of Ohio today affirmed the conviction of a Lorain County man who injured a state trooper directing traffic while he was driving under the influence of marijuana.

In a 6-1 decision, the Court held that Edward Balmert's hitting a state trooper, identified as “C.G.,” while she was directing traffic, was the foreseeable consequence of Balmert driving with over six times the legal limit of marijuana metabolites in his system. Metabolites result from the breakdown of THC, the active ingredient in cannabis that causes a high. The evidence was sufficient to support his conviction of aggravated vehicular assault, the Court ruled.

Writing for the Court majority, Justice Patrick F. Fischer explained that to convict Balmert of aggravated vehicular assault, the prosecution needed to prove more than that Balmert was merely over the limit for driving while under the influence of a controlled substance’s metabolites. It also required additional proof that his marijuana use was the “proximate cause” of the accident.

“Balmert had a concentration of marijuana metabolites in his urine that exceeded the legal limit when he struck and seriously injured C.G. The State presented evidence showing that the use of marijuana products can slow the user’s reaction time and affect his ability to focus,” Justice Fischer wrote. “Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, the trier of fact could reasonably conclude that Balmert’s marijuana use was the proximate cause of the accident.”

Chief Justice Sharon L. Kennedy and Justices R. Patrick DeWine, Joseph T. Deters, Daniel R. Hawkins, and Megan E. Shanahan joined the opinion.

In a dissenting opinion, Justice Jennifer Brunner noted that Balmert, 55 at the time of the accident, explained that he took hemp and marijuana to treat arthritis and other medical conditions. She wrote the officers testifying at Balmert’s trial stated that metabolites in the system measure only the breakdown of THC, and did not prove that at the time of the accident, he was impaired.

Justice Brunner maintained the majority failed to provide any analysis related to how the metabolites in Balmert’s system caused the harm suffered by the trooper.

Motorist Arrested For Striking Trooper
Trooper C.G. had over 30 years of law enforcement experience and routinely taught courses on traffic control to other officers. She was dispatched to the intersection of Middle Ridge Road and the exit ramp of State Route 2 in Lorain County because a traffic light went out. The weather was clear that day, with no visibility issues, and C.G. was wearing a reflective vest.

Around 6 p.m., still during daylight hours, Balmert was driving and had stopped at the intersection where C.G. was directing traffic. He began to make a left turn and struck C.G. She suffered serious injuries, which ended her career as a trooper.

Other troopers on the scene immediately responded and spoke with Balmert. He agreed to provide a urine sample, which was sent to a lab for toxicological testing. He also told the troopers at the scene that he regularly used “hemp” products, including that morning, for his medical conditions. Sgt. David Francway, one of the troopers who responded, was a certified drug-recognition expert. Francway had Balmert perform various field sobriety tests to determine whether he was under the influence of marijuana.

Balmert was arrested at the scene for driving under the influence (OVI). The toxicology report indicated the concentration of marijuana metabolites in his system exceeded 200 nanograms per milliliter. The maximum limit under state law is 35 nanograms per milliliter.

Balmert was indicted for aggravated vehicular assault and vehicular assault. He was also indicted for two separate counts of OVI – operating a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol, a drug of abuse, or a combination of them, and operating a vehicle under the influence of a listed controlled substance or a listed metabolite of a controlled substance.

Driver Contests Aggravated Vehicular Assault Charge
The case proceeded to a bench trial. The trial judge found Balmert guilty of aggravated vehicular assault and OVI while under the influence of a listed metabolite. The court found him not guilty of OVI while under the influence of drugs and of vehicular assault. He was sentenced to two years in prison for the aggravated vehicular assault charge and three days of confinement for the OVI.

Balmert appealed the decision to the Ninth District Court of Appeals, which affirmed the conviction. He then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court Analyzed Connection Between Substances in System and Aggravated Vehicular Assault Charge
Justice Fischer explained that Balmert argued the Lorain County Prosecutor’s Office’s evidence was insufficient to show that a conviction for OVI under the influence of marijuana metabolites could prove he committed aggravated vehicular assault.

The opinion explained that when a defendant contests the sufficiency of the evidence, “the question is whether the evidence presented, when viewed in a light most favorable to the prosecution, would allow any rational trier of fact to find the essential elements of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt.”

The Court agreed with Balmert’s argument that it is not enough to prove that just because he violated R.C. 4511.19(A)(1)(j)(viii)(II) by having too many marijuana metabolites in his system, that he can be charged with aggravated vehicular assault. The aggravated vehicular assault law, R.C. 2903.08(A)(1)(a), states that no person operating a motor vehicle shall cause serious physical harm as the proximate result of violating an offense under R.C. 4511.19(A).

Balmert argued he was acquitted of driving under the influence, and the trial judge mistakenly linked his guilt of OVI for metabolites to the aggravated vehicular assault charge without proof that it was the “proximate result.”

The Court stated that “proximate result” in this context has the same legal meaning as “proximate cause,” which is proven when the conduct at issue has a “sufficiently close connection” to the harm it caused.

“We have previously held that foreseeability is the key determination in evaluating whether there is a sufficiently close connection between the conduct and the harm to establish proximate causation,” the opinion stated.

The Court found it did not matter whether the trial judge found Balmert guilty of being under the influence. The opinion stated the key question is whether there was evidence to determine if it was foreseeable that Balmert’s driving with six times the legal limits of marijuana metabolites in his system could cause him to strike C.G.

The Court noted that at Balmert’s trial, two officers who were certified drug-recognition experts explained that marijuana depresses a user’s reflexes and slows reaction time. This can impair a user’s ability to drive, especially in a situation calling for greater attentiveness, the experts stated. One testified that marijuana use affects a user’s depth and space perception as well as the user’s ability to concentrate. Both officers testified they suspected Balmert was under the influence of marijuana based on the field sobriety tests.

The Court found it was reasonable for the trial judge to find that Balmert's striking C.G. with his car was a foreseeable consequence, making it the proximate cause, of his marijuana or hemp use.

No Evidence Linked Substance Use to Accident, Dissent Maintained
Justice Brunner noted that while one expert stated that Balmert was under the influence of cannabis and unable to operate a vehicle safely, the state failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Balmert was operating his vehicle while under the influence.

Justice Brunner noted that published research shows that marijuana metabolites in urine indicate a past use of marijuana but do not indicate impairment. It may seem natural to assume that, because the law prohibits driving with the concentration of metabolites found in Balmert’s system, a driver must be impaired or driving in an unsafe manner, she wrote. She further pointed out that the law enforcement experts who testified for the state explained that marijuana metabolites are the breakdown product of marijuana, and unlike alcohol, there is no concentration level that equates to impairment.

“Therefore, the State needed to show through something other than an assumption of impairment that Balmert’s over-the-limit offense proximately caused the accident and resulting harm,” the dissent stated.

She wrote that, based on the trial court's finding that Balmert was not impaired at the time of the accident, there is no obvious connection between his medical marijuana use and the accident.

“While a terrible and tragic accident occurred, ending the career path of a state trooper, the State presented no evidence to establish that the inactive metabolites detected in Balmert’s urine proximately caused the accident,” she concluded.

2024-0669. State v. Balmert, Slip Opinion No. 2025-Ohio-5588.

View oral argument video of this case.

Please note: Opinion summaries are prepared by the Office of Public Information for the general public and news media. Opinion summaries are not prepared for every opinion, but only for noteworthy cases. Opinion summaries are not to be considered as official headnotes or syllabi of court opinions. The full text of this and other court opinions are available online.