State v. Hagen
2018 Ohio 4045
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- On Feb. 27, 2017 Officer Hughes found Bobby Lee Hagen asleep in a running, parked car; EMTs had been dispatched to check a reportedly slumped driver. Hagen denied needing medical aid, said he fell asleep, and initially denied recent opioid use.
- Vehicle registration check showed the car belonged to an unrelated Springfield woman; she later said Hagen had no permission to use it. Hughes asked to look inside; Hagen (per officer) consented. Inside the car officers found drug paraphernalia, a used syringe, residue on bills, a small baggie, and a backpack later identified as Hagen’s with pipes and paraphernalia. Hagen’s person yielded wrapped white substances he identified as heroin.
- Hagen was arrested, read Miranda, and told Sgt. Reese he had used cocaine and heroin the prior night but was just tired, not overdosing; he declined medical treatment.
- Indictments charged multiple drug-possession and paraphernalia offenses and unauthorized use of a vehicle; later additional charges (failure to appear, vandalism) arose after he cut off his electronic monitor.
- Hagen moved (1) for immunity under Ohio Rev. Code §2925.11(B)(2)(b) (the post-overdose medical-assistance immunity) and (2) to suppress; the trial court denied both, crediting officer testimony over Hagen’s claim he had overdosed and that he did not consent to the vehicle search.
- Hagen pled no contest/guilty to two possession counts, unauthorized use, and failure to appear; sentenced to an aggregate 24 months. He appealed, arguing the trial court erred in denying dismissal under the immunity statute.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Hagen is immune from prosecution under R.C. 2925.11(B)(2)(b) (post-overdose medical-assistance immunity) | State: The evidence supporting the drug-possession offenses was not obtained as a result of Hagen seeking or needing medical assistance; officers observed no signs of overdose, and the incriminating evidence was discovered after Hagen consented to search. | Hagen: He experienced an overdose that prompted (or was the subject of) a 911/EMS response; he sought/received screening and referral within 30 days, so the drug-possession misdemeanors/felonies are statutorily barred. | Court: Denied immunity. Credited officers’ testimony that Hagen showed no physiological signs of overdose, declined medical aid, and consented to the vehicle search; evidence was not obtained because he sought or needed medical assistance. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Cassel, 66 N.E.3d 318 (Ohio Ct. App.) (de novo review applies to motions to dismiss indictments based on statutory immunity)
- State v. Gaines, 951 N.E.2d 814 (Ohio Ct. App.) (discussing standard of review and motions to dismiss)
- State v. Melms, 101 N.E.3d 747 (Ohio Ct. App.) (holding demand for immunity under R.C. 2925.11(B)(2)(b) is equivalent to a motion to dismiss and is reviewed de novo)