2023 Ohio 2040
Ohio Ct. App.2023Background:
- On March 29, 2021, Bordeau's car crossed the median on I-71 at high speed, struck a southbound RAV4 which then hit a semi; all four occupants of the RAV4 died.
- Bordeau was pulled from her vehicle and later taken to the hospital; blood was drawn under a warrant and tested by the Ohio State Highway Patrol lab and NMS Labs, showing fentanyl and related compounds.
- Bordeau was indicted on eight counts of aggravated vehicular homicide (four counts under R.C. 2903.06(A)(1)(a) for OVI-based deaths, and four under R.C. 2903.06(A)(2)(a) for reckless death); the jury convicted on all counts and the court merged counts 5–8 into 1–4.
- Pretrial, Bordeau moved to suppress the blood-test results arguing noncompliance with Ohio Department of Health (ODH) regulations; the trial court held a two-day suppression hearing and denied suppression under a substantial-compliance analysis.
- The State sought a Daubert hearing to exclude portions of defense expert Dr. Jimmie Valentine’s testimony; the court allowed drug-effect testimony but excluded his opinion that Bordeau had a seizure at the time of the crash.
- Sentenced to consecutive terms totaling 32–36 years; Bordeau appealed, raising suppression, counsel effectiveness, jury instruction, and expert-admissibility claims.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standard for suppression review (substantial compliance) | State: When defendant's motion is non-specific, State need only show general/substantial compliance with ODH regs. | Bordeau: Trial court should have applied substantial-compliance to all raised issues and State bore a heavier burden. | Court: Applied substantial-compliance; plaintiff met its burden; no error. |
| Admissibility of blood tests (time, lab procedure, refrigeration, NMS permits) | State: Substantial compliance demonstrated; delay past 3 hours is permissible for aggravated vehicular homicide if regs substantially complied with and expert testimony explains results. | Bordeau: Blood drawn >3 hours after crash; lab machine malfunctioned; sample not properly refrigerated; some NMS personnel lacked permits. | Court: Substantial compliance established as to machine repair/column replacement, refrigeration chain, and NMS personnel permits; 3-hour rule did not mandate suppression given Hassler plus expert testimony. |
| Ineffective assistance for allegedly stipulating to blood results | State: Counsel vigorously litigated suppression; no stipulation in record; counsel presumed competent. | Bordeau: Trial counsel stipulated to admission of blood results with expert testimony, which prejudiced defense. | Court: Record shows no such stipulation; Strickland standard not met; claim fails. |
| Jury instruction on lesser-included offense (vehicular manslaughter) | State: Jury already had lesser-included options via indictment (counts 5–8) and evidence did not support acquittal of greater while convicting of lesser. | Bordeau: Requested instruction on vehicular manslaughter based on evidence of minor misdemeanors causing the crash. | Court: Denial not an abuse of discretion—evidence did not reasonably permit acquittal on greater and conviction on the lesser when equivalent lesser charges were before jury. |
| Exclusion of defense expert's seizure opinion (Daubert/Evid. R. 702) | State: Dr. Valentine's seizure opinion was unreliable and he lacked the qualifications/methodology to diagnose a seizure. | Bordeau: Dr. Valentine qualified by pharmacology expertise to opine seizures could explain blackout and crash. | Court: Exclusion affirmed—Valentine lacked clinical seizure-diagnosis qualifications and his methodology showed an analytical gap; allowed only his drug-effect opinions. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Plummer, 22 Ohio St.3d 292 (Ohio 1986) (admissibility of alcohol/drug tests requires substantial compliance with administrative rules rather than rigid compliance)
- State v. Hassler, 115 Ohio St.3d 322 (Ohio 2007) (three-hour blood-draw rule does not automatically render results inadmissible for aggravated vehicular homicide if regs substantially complied with and expert testimony is presented)
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) (trial judge's gatekeeping role to ensure expert reliability)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong ineffective-assistance standard)
- Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690 (1996) (de novo review of legal application in suppression rulings; defer to factual findings)
- Gen. Elec. Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136 (1997) (abuse-of-discretion standard in expert-evidence admissibility)
- State v. Burnside, 100 Ohio St.3d 152 (Ohio 2003) (mixed question of law and fact in suppression review)
- State v. Nemeth, 82 Ohio St.3d 202 (Ohio 1998) (Daubert reliability focuses on principles and methods, not conclusions)