State v. Bugg
2018 Ohio 2544
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- Allen Bugg was involved in a fatal motor-vehicle collision; he received treatment at Lodi Community Hospital and refused a Trooper’s request for a blood chemical test.
- A registered nurse drew two blood tubes at the hospital for medical purposes; later a trooper obtained a warrant, seized the hospital blood, and the Ohio State Highway Patrol lab reported BAC 0.137.
- Bugg was indicted for aggravated vehicular homicide and assault; he moved to suppress the blood-test results on multiple grounds including noncompliance with R.C. 4511.19(D) and Ohio Adm.Code 3701-53-05.
- The trial court suppressed the crime-lab results for lack of demonstrated compliance with the administrative rule, but allowed the State to seek to admit hospital testing results under the amended R.C. 4511.19(D)(1)(a).
- At a suppression hearing the hospital’s medical technologist testified that she ran a colorimetric test (detecting NADH) and reported a BAC of 0.145; cross-examination elicited that lactic acid can also produce NADH and the witness was unsure whether the assay differentiates sources.
- The trial court denied Bugg’s supplemental motion to suppress the hospital colorimetric test results; Bugg pled no contest, was convicted, and appealed the denial of suppression.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Bugg) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether hospital-drawn and -analyzed blood results are admissible under R.C. 4511.19(D)(1)(a) despite potential noncompliance with Ohio Adm.Code 3701-53-05 | The colorimetric test is scientifically unreliable because NADH can be produced by lactic acid from trauma; thus results are inadmissible | The statute permits admission of tests performed at a health-care provider with expert testimony; hospital testing need not show compliance with the administrative rule | Court held the hospital test results are admissible under 4511.19(D)(1)(a) with expert testimony; denial of suppression affirmed |
| Whether Bugg’s challenge to the test’s scientific reliability was preserved and required exclusion under Evid.R. 702/403 | The unreliability warranted suppression/exclusion—probative value outweighed by unfair prejudice | The State noted Bugg raised the issue at the hearing and contended the challenge goes to weight, not admissibility | Court found Bugg offered no expert to prove unreliability or lactic acid presence; reliability issue was for weight at trial, not suppression |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Burnside, 100 Ohio St.3d 152 (Ohio 2003) (appellate review of suppression: trial court findings of fact are given deference; legal conclusions reviewed de novo)
- State v. Mayl, 106 Ohio St.3d 207 (Ohio 2005) (State must show substantial compliance with R.C. 4511.19(D)(1) and Ohio Adm.Code 3701-53 for blood-alcohol tests to be admissible, later impacted by statutory amendment)