State v. Sickels

Summary

The Ohio Court of Appeals, Fifth Appellate District, affirmed Richard L. Sickels's convictions and 48-month prison sentence arising from a fatal automobile crash. The court held that blood and urine test results withdrawn and analyzed by a health-care provider could be admitted with expert testimony without requiring substantial compliance with the Ohio Administrative Code at the suppression stage. The court also rejected Sickels's confrontation and discovery-violation arguments.

Holdings

1. When blood or urine is withdrawn and analyzed by a health care provider during medical treatment, the State is not required at the suppression hearing to establish substantial compliance with the Ohio Administrative Code under the preamendment Mayl framework. The results may be admitted with expert testimony at trial under R.C. 4511.19(D)(1)(a).
2. The Sixth Amendment right of confrontation does not constitutionally compel the State to produce the laboratory technician for cross-examination at a pretrial suppression hearing.
3. The alleged late disclosure of the laboratory technician's identity did not warrant relief because the case never proceeded to trial, Sickels failed to show prejudice, and he forfeited the prejudice argument by proceeding with the suppression hearing without requesting a continuance.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the trial court erred by denying suppression of blood and urine test results obtained and analyzed by a private hospital without the expert testimony or substantial compliance with Ohio administrative regulations asserted by Sickels.
2. Whether the absence of the laboratory technician at the suppression hearing violated Sickels's Sixth Amendment right of confrontation.
3. Whether the State's disclosure of the laboratory technician's identity after the suppression hearing and shortly before the scheduled trial constituted a prejudicial discovery violation.

Disposition

affirmed