State v. Carr
2013 Ohio 737
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Carr was involved in a February 9, 2011, car crash on I-271; witnesses observed erratic driving and signs of intoxication; he admitted a prior glass of wine but denied the accident; he was taken to Hillcrest Hospital where a blood draw was obtained without his consent; the blood sample tested with BAC .202; the Lake County Court of Common Pleas denied suppression and convicted Carr of multiple OVI-related offenses and DUS.
- The suppression ruling relied on Schmerber to admit an evidentiary blood draw without consent under exigent circumstances and probable cause; the court found exigency, probable cause, and reasonable collection procedures were satisfied.
- A Crim.R. 29 motion was denied; the state presented testimony from officers, a nurse, and toxicology staff, and the defense presented Ray Carr’s testimony about notices and payments.
- The driver’s license suspension notice was mailed to Carr; family testimony suggested notice was received; the court found notice was adequate for DUS conviction.
- The conviction included two counts of Aggravated Vehicular Assault, one Vehicular Assault, two OVI, and one DUS, with some counts merged for sentencing; the appeal challenges suppression, sufficiency/weight of OVI, and notice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of evidentiary blood draw without consent | Carr argues blood draw lacked arrest, consent, and proper implied-consent basis. | State contends Schmerber allowed the draw under exigent circumstances with probable cause. | Exigent circumstances and probable cause satisfied; blood draw admissible. |
| Sufficiency/weight of OVI conviction given blood evidence | Evidence from medical blood draw and lack of field sobriety tests undermine proof of under-the-influence. | Totality of evidence (observations, BAC .202) supports guilt. | Conviction supported by sufficient evidence and weight favors the State. |
| Necessity of actual notice for DUS conviction | State must show driver knew or was notified of suspension. | Actual knowledge not required; notice via mailing suffices. | Notice completed by mailing; DUS conviction affirmed. |
| Administrative Code compliance for blood handling | Noncompliance with Administrative Code could exclude blood evidence. | R.C. 4511.19(D)(1)(a) allows hospital blood tests; admissibility unaffected by code gaps. | Not error; admissibility sustained under statute and corroborating testimony. |
| Crim.R. 29 sufficiency post-admission of blood evidence | Blood-evidence plus other testimony may be legally insufficient. | Evidence, including BAC and erratic driving, suffices. | Crim.R. 29 correctly denied; evidence supports conviction. |
Key Cases Cited
- Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (Supreme Court-1966) (blood draw admissible under exigency with probable cause)
- State v. Hoover, 123 Ohio St.3d 418 (Ohio-2009) (Schmerber framework; exigent circumstances for blood draw)
- State v. Capehart, 2011-Ohio-2602 (Ohio-2011) (Schmerber-based blood draw admissibility in Ohio)
- State v. Hummel, 154 Ohio App.3d 123 (Ohio-2003) (probable cause to arrest in DUI scenarios)
- State v. Penix, 11th Dist. No. 2007-P-0086 (2008-Ohio-4050) (totality-of-the-circumstances supports probable cause without field sobriety tests)
- State v. Heiney, 11th Dist. No. 2006-P-0074 (2007-Ohio-1200) (notice for DUS is satisfied by mailed notice)