State v. Fridley
2017 Ohio 4368
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- On Nov. 19, 2014 Barry Fridley failed to negotiate a curve, crossing centerline and causing a crash that killed the oncoming driver and seriously injured that driver’s passenger.
- EMS and troopers responded; Fridley was medically treated, initially unarousable; first hospital blood draw ~1 hour after crash showed BAC .239.
- A search warrant was obtained for hospital records and for an additional blood draw at police request; a second draw ~4 hours after the crash (law-enforcement-ordered, crime-lab-tested) showed BAC .139.
- Trooper Disbennett administered an HGN field-sobriety test in Fridley’s hospital bed (four of six clues observed) and obtained statements from Fridley while he remained hospitalized.
- Fridley moved to suppress the HGN, both blood tests, and his statements; the trial court denied suppression. He pleaded no contest to aggravated vehicular homicide and aggravated vehicular assault and received consecutive sentences totaling seven years.
- On appeal this Court affirmed most rulings, rejected ineffective-assistance claims, but remanded for a nunc pro tunc entry because the written judgment failed to incorporate the oral findings required for consecutive sentences.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Fridley's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of HGN | Trooper substantially complied with NHTSA standards; HGN reliable despite hospital setting and prior narcotic analgesics | Trooper trained to an earlier manual; HGN invalid in reclined hospital position; narcotics and possible head injury could have tainted results | Admitted. Court found substantial compliance with NHTSA; position/reclined test and fentanyl/dilaudid did not invalidate HGN; no evidence of head trauma affecting test. |
| Admissibility of initial (medical) blood (.239) | Hospital blood drawn by health-care provider is admissible under R.C. 4511.19 with supporting testimony; suppression hearing is pretrial so Confrontation Clause arguments were waived | Confrontation Clause violation (laboratory technician not called); scientific unreliability of testing protocol | Admitted. Confrontation challenge waived at suppression hearing; medical-test exception and R.C. 4511.19 permit admission where blood was drawn/analyzed by a health-care provider and supported by testimony. |
| Admissibility of second (warrant) blood (.139) | Samples handled in compliance with Director of Health regs; substantial compliance satisfied despite >3-hour elapsed time | Sample taken outside statutory timeframe and alleged procedural deviations (e.g., refrigeration) render test inadmissible | Admitted. State showed substantial compliance with Ohio Adm.Code; three-hour rule does not automatically exclude evidence; refrigeration requirement inapplicable while sample in transit. |
| Statements to police in hospital (Miranda) | Questioning was non-custodial; Fridley was free to leave only in a medical sense and was not under arrest or police restraint | Presence of officers, execution of warrant, forced blood draw, and inability to leave made interrogation custodial; Miranda warnings required | Admitted. Totality of circumstances showed no custodial interrogation: medical restraints (IV) were not police-imposed, no formal arrest or coercion, and nurse remained on scene. |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel | Counsel reasonably declined objections because evidence was admissible; no prejudice from failing to raise suppression objections | Counsel ineffective for not litigating suppression issues that should have excluded key evidence | Rejected. Under Strickland counsel performance not deficient where objections would have failed; no prejudice shown to plea decision. |
| Legality of consecutive sentences | Trial court orally made the R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings at sentencing supporting consecutive terms | Written judgment entry failed to include the statutory findings required for consecutive sentences | Consecutive sentences substantively affirmed, but remanded for nunc pro tunc entry to incorporate the statutory findings into the written judgment. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Boczar, 113 Ohio St.3d 148 (Ohio 2007) (foundation required for HGN admissibility and NHTSA compliance standard)
- State v. Burnside, 100 Ohio St.3d 152 (Ohio 2003) (state must show substantial compliance with Director of Health regulations to admit blood-test evidence)
- State v. Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d 209 (Ohio 2014) (trial court may correct omission of oral statutory findings in written entry by nunc pro tunc order)
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (U.S. 2004) (Confrontation Clause principles distinguishing trial testimony from pretrial proceedings)
- Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (U.S. 2009) (Confrontation Clause issues for forensic reports at trial)
- Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 564 U.S. 647 (U.S. 2011) (requirements for witness confrontation when admitting lab results)
- State v. Hassler, 115 Ohio St.3d 322 (Ohio 2007) (blood drawn outside three-hour statutory timeframe can still be admissible with substantial compliance)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-prong standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- State v. Gumm, 73 Ohio St.3d 413 (Ohio 1995) (objective test for custodial interrogation under Miranda)