State v. Hill
2013 Ohio 4022
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- On August 29, 2010, Hill’s car struck the passenger side of Hayward’s vehicle during a left turn at ~4:00 a.m.; Hayward’s five‑month‑old granddaughter died from crash injuries.
- Hill fled the scene on foot; officers found her a few blocks away, reportedly combative, disoriented, with slurred speech and bloodshot eyes. A bottle of 1800 Tequila was recovered from Hill’s vehicle and Hill admitted drinking shots that night.
- Hill was indicted on aggravated vehicular homicide, involuntary manslaughter, OVI (R.C. 4511.19(A)(1)(a)), and receiving stolen property; the receiving‑stolen‑property count was dismissed before trial.
- A jury convicted Hill of aggravated vehicular homicide, involuntary manslaughter (later merged), and OVI; the trial court sentenced her to six years for the homicide and 24 days for the OVI and imposed a lifetime license suspension.
- Hill appealed, raising five assignments of error challenging (1) manifest weight of the evidence on intoxication, (2) failure to instruct on vehicular manslaughter, (3) admission of the State’s accident reconstructionist as an expert, (4) admission of crash data exhibit, and (5) failure to merge OVI with aggravated vehicular homicide for sentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Hill) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether convictions were against the manifest weight of the evidence (intoxication) | Evidence (officer/paramedic observations, admission to drinking, empty tequila bottle) supports finding impaired driving ability | Hill argued evidence did not support intoxication at the time of driving | Convictions not against manifest weight; weight favors intoxication findings |
| Trial court’s failure to instruct on lesser‑included offense of vehicular manslaughter | No specific argument preserved at trial | Hill argued omission was reversible error | Forfeited by Hill for failing to object below; no plain‑error argument preserved; assignment overruled |
| Admissibility of State’s accident reconstructionist expert testimony | Trial testimony admissible; Hill did not object at trial | Hill contended expert testimony should not have been permitted | Forfeited by failure to object below; no plain‑error argument preserved; assignment overruled |
| Admission of crash data retrieval printout (State’s Exhibit 11) | Exhibit admissible; Hill made no contemporaneous objection | Hill argued exhibit was inadmissible without reliability foundation | Forfeited by failure to object; Hill did not show plain error or that outcome would differ; assignment overruled |
| Whether OVI and aggravated vehicular homicide are allied offenses subject to merger under Johnson | State implicitly defended separate sentences | Hill argued the convictions should have merged for sentencing | Case remanded: trial court failed to perform Johnson allied‑offenses analysis; remand for that determination |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Otten, 33 Ohio App.3d 339 (9th Dist. 1986) (standard for manifest weight review)
- State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (1997) (manifest‑weight vs. sufficiency and appellate role as "thirteenth juror")
- State v. Johnson, 128 Ohio St.3d 153 (2010) (test for allied offenses and merger under R.C. 2941.25)
- State v. Issa, 93 Ohio St.3d 49 (2001) (plain‑error standard requiring outcome would clearly have been otherwise)