Summary
The Ohio Supreme Court held that hospital blood-alcohol test results offered in an aggravated-vehicular-homicide prosecution based on an alleged R.C. 4511.19(A) violation are admissible only upon a showing of substantial compliance with R.C. 4511.19(D)(1) and Ohio Administrative Code Chapter 3701-53. The court rejected an exception for tests requested by medical personnel and concluded that the absence of required permits and timely sample retention prevented substantial compliance. The court affirmed the court of appeals’ reversal of the conviction.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether hospital blood-alcohol test results obtained for medical treatment are subject to the admissibility requirements of R.C. 4511.19(D)(1) and Ohio Adm.Code Chapter 3701-53 when used in an aggravated-vehicular-homicide prosecution dependent on proof of an R.C. 4511.19(A) violation.
- Whether the State established substantial compliance with the applicable statutory and Ohio Department of Health testing requirements.
- Whether the source of the request for the blood test, or the hospital laboratory's accreditation, exempts the results from the statutory and regulatory requirements.
Holdings
- In an aggravated-vehicular-homicide prosecution that depends on proof of an R.C. 4511.19(A) violation, blood-alcohol test results are admissible only if the State demonstrates substantial compliance with R.C. 4511.19(D)(1) and Ohio Adm.Code Chapter 3701-53, even when the test was performed by an accredited hospital laboratory for medical treatment rather than at law enforcement's request.
- The State must show substantial compliance with the applicable testing statutes and regulations after a defendant timely challenges the admissibility of the test results; the standard excuses only clearly de minimis errors or minor procedural deviations.
- A defendant who fails to file a motion to suppress test results on the ground of noncompliance with the applicable procedures may not later object to admissibility on that ground at trial.
Key quotations
“We conclude that in a criminal prosecution for aggravated vehicular homicide that depends upon proof of an R.C. 4511.19(A) violation, laboratory test results are admissible only if the state shows substantial compliance with R.C. 4511.19(D)(1) and Ohio Adm.Code Chapter 3701-53, even if the test was conducted in an accredited hospital laboratory.” (106 Ohio St. 3d at 207)
“We hold that when a blood-alcohol test is not requested by law enforcement but is administered in connection with medical treatment by qualified medical personnel and analyzed in an accredited laboratory, the state must show substantial compliance with R.C. 4511.19(D)(1) and Ohio Adm.Code Chapter 3701-53 before the test results are admissible in a prosecution depending upon proof of an R.C. 4511.19(A) violation.” (106 Ohio St. 3d at 216)
“Until the legislature creates a specific exemption, hospital tests of bodily substances — to be admissible in prosecutions that have as an element of proof a violation of R.C. 4511.19(A), including prosecutions under R.C. 2903.06(A)(1)— must substantially comply with Ohio Adm.Code Chapter 3701-53 and R.C. 4511.19(D)(1).” (106 Ohio St. 3d at 218)
Factual background
Near midnight on November 19, 2000, John Mayl struck and killed a construction worker while driving. After being injured and taken to Miami Valley Hospital, Mayl had blood drawn by a registered nurse for medical treatment, not at the request of law enforcement; the hospital laboratory reported a blood-alcohol concentration of 0.207 percent. The laboratory lacked permits issued by the Ohio Director of Health, and the sample was discarded three to five days after testing rather than retained for one year.
Procedural history
After a fatal automobile accident, Mayl was indicted for aggravated vehicular homicide based on an alleged violation of R.C. 4511.19(A). The trial court denied his motion to suppress hospital blood-alcohol results, accepted his no-contest plea, and entered a conviction. The Montgomery County Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the statutory and Ohio Department of Health testing requirements applied. The Supreme Court of Ohio accepted the State's discretionary appeal and affirmed the court of appeals.