Summary
This Ohio Court of Appeals opinion affirms William McMurray’s convictions for operating a vehicle under the influence (OVI) and a turn signal violation. McMurray challenged the admissibility of his blood test results, arguing non-compliance with state administrative regulations and improper restrictions on cross-examining toxicology witnesses. He also contested the trial court’s jury instructions regarding the timing of blood-alcohol concentration relative to driving. The appellate court found substantial compliance with testing regulations, deemed evidentiary rulings within the trial court’s discretion, and concluded the jury instructions accurately reflected Ohio’s per-se OVI statute.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the trial court erred in overruling the motion to suppress evidence based on alleged non‑compliance with Adm.Code 3701‑53‑02(B)(1) and tube documentation requirements
- Whether the trial court erred in restricting defense questioning of the blood‑tube manufacturer under Evid.R.702
- Whether the trial court gave an improper jury instruction concerning the elements of OVI
Holdings
- The trial court's denial of the motion to suppress is affirmed because the State substantially complied with the applicable administrative regulations and any deviation was de minimis.
- The trial court's restriction is affirmed because no expert testimony was offered; Evid.R.702 therefore did not apply.
- The jury instruction is affirmed as substantially identical to the statutory language and therefore proper.
Key quotations
“The Defendant is charged with operating a vehicle with a prohibited concentration of alcohol in his system in violation of R.C. 4511.19(A)(1)(b). Before you can find the Defendant guilty, you must find beyond a reasonable doubt that: on or about the 10th day of June 2023, in the City of Dayton, Montgomery County, Ohio, William McMurray operated a vehicle with a concentration of eight hundredths of one percent or more but less than seventeen hundredths of one percent by weight per unit volume of alcohol in the Defendant’s whole blood.” (¶ 28)
“The Ohio Supreme Court has noted that “rigid compliance with the Department of Health regulations is not necessary for test results to be admissible.”” (¶ 12)
Factual background
Police stopped McMurray after observing erratic driving and a failure to use a turn signal. Officers detected the odor of alcohol, seized the driver, and obtained a blood sample that later tested .13755 g/100 mL. The trial court denied McMurray's motion to suppress the blood evidence, admitted the results, and instructed the jury on the statutory elements of OVI.
Procedural history
The trial court denied McMurray's motion to suppress blood evidence, admitted the blood test results, and gave a jury instruction on the OVI statute. McMurray was convicted of OVI and a turn‑signal violation. He appealed on three assignments of error.