State v. Hayes
2016 Ohio 7241
Ohio Ct. App.2016Background
- On Sept. 17, 2011, Ryan Hayes drove a car into a stationary track hoe in Dayton, Ohio; his passenger Qadriyyah Harvey died from blunt-force injuries; Hayes was injured, unconscious at the hospital, and smelled of alcohol.
- First responders and officers observed alcohol odor, an open can of alcoholic beverage in the car, and Hayes admitted to drinking; two blood vials were drawn at ~11:20 p.m. and later tested .173 and .169 (average .171); marijuana metabolite also detected (14 ng/mL).
- Hayes was indicted for aggravated vehicular homicide (R.C. 2903.06(A)(1)), aggravated vehicular homicide (reckless), OVI (.17+ whole blood) and OVI (under the influence); convictions on all counts; trial court merged companion counts and sentenced to 7 years (felony) + 180 days (misdemeanor) consecutively for 7.5 years total.
- Hayes filed multiple suppression motions (challenging implied consent, warrantless blood draw, lab procedures, and later sample destruction); the trial court denied suppression and admitted blood and toxicology evidence.
- On appeal Hayes raised (inter alia) allied-offense/merger and consecutive-sentence errors, suppression (implied consent/warrant/search), destruction of blood samples, admission of a gruesome autopsy photo, prosecutorial misconduct on cross-exam, sufficiency of BAC evidence, and absence from certain proceedings. The appellate court affirmed; one judge concurred in part and dissented in part as to BAC/per-se conviction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Hayes) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether aggravated vehicular homicide (R.C. 2903.06(A)(1)) and OVI (.17, R.C. 4511.19(A)(1)(f)) are allied offenses requiring merger | Offenses are of dissimilar import; legislature distinguished felony causing death while OVI is a separate misdemeanor offense, so separate convictions and punishment allowed | The two convictions arise from the same conduct and so are allied offenses of similar import and must merge | Court applied Ruff/Earley: offenses are not allied (different import); convictions may stand separately and did not err in refusing to merge |
| Whether the warrantless blood draw from an unconscious Hayes was unlawful (implied consent/arrest requirement; search/seizure) | R.C. 4511.191(A)(4) deems unconscious drivers to have consented; officer had probable cause from scene observations and statements; exigent circumstances (dissipation of alcohol; near 3-hour window) justified no-warrant draw | Blood was taken before formal arrest; implied-consent statute applies only after arrest; state violated Fourth Amendment and implied consent requirements | Court held unconscious drivers are deemed to consent; probable cause existed; exigent circumstances justified a warrantless draw; suppression properly denied |
| Whether destruction of blood samples before indictment violated due process (loss of potentially exculpatory evidence) | Lab followed Ohio Adm. Code and its internal 14-month retention policy (two months longer than minimum); samples were only potentially useful and destroyed in good faith | Destruction occurred ~1 month before indictment; defendant lost ability to retest — violation of due process unless bad faith shown | Court treated samples as potentially useful, not manifestly exculpatory; no evidence of bad faith or deviation from routine procedures; admission of blood test results did not violate due process |
| Whether admitting an internal autopsy photograph (gruesome) was an abuse of discretion | Photograph was probative and necessary to explain cause of death to the jury (coroner’s testimony); probative value outweighed prejudice | Photo was gruesome, repetitious, and inflammatory, risking unfair prejudice under Evid.R. 403(A) | Court held the photo aided juror understanding of the medical cause of death; not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice; admission was not an abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Ruff, 143 Ohio St.3d 114 (Ohio 2015) (sets conduct-focused, three-question test for allied-offense merger)
- State v. Earley, 145 Ohio St.3d 281 (Ohio 2015) (applies Ruff and holds aggravated vehicular assault and OVI are of dissimilar import)
- Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (U.S. 1966) (warrantless blood draw may be reasonable where exigent circumstances exist due to the evanescent nature of alcohol evidence)
- California v. Trombetta, 467 U.S. 479 (U.S. 1984) (due-process test for destroyed evidence: materially exculpatory and apparent before destruction)
- Arizona v. Youngblood, 488 U.S. 51 (U.S. 1988) (bad-faith requirement where destroyed evidence is only potentially useful)