State v. Hollis
2013 Ohio 2586
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- This is an appeal from a suppression ruling by the Richland County Court of Common Pleas; judgment affirmed.
- Sept. 12, 2010, shortly after midnight, Hollis’s crash at Reed Rd. and Route 30 involved a high-speed ride, loss of control, and an overturn.
- Three passengers were in the truck: Antonelli (front passenger), Oprean and Shirer (in the bed; Oprean killed).
- Alcohol containers were observed at the scene and odor of alcohol permeated the scene; Hollis was transported to MedCentral Hospital.
- In the ER, Hollis was unresponsive but with an odor of alcohol; a trooper intended to administer a blood test under implied-consent law and used a nurse to draw Hollis’s blood; samples were prepared and sent to labs; Holllis’s BAC later tested at .197 (whole blood) and .239 (serum).
- Appellant was charged with multiple DUI-related offenses and vehicular offenses; a suppression hearing was held; the hospital blood draw was conceded as not legally sufficient for a plasma test but could be used with expert testimony for other charges.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the whole-blood draw at the hospital complied with Fourth Amendment/implied-consent requirements | Hollis argues no arrest/consent; no exigent circumstances; improper blood draw. | There was constructive arrest, probable cause for DUI, and exigent circumstances; implied consent applied; procedures were proper. | Yes; blood draw admissible given probable cause and exigent circumstances. |
| Whether the hospital plasma blood draw/test complied with law and evidence rules for plasma evidence | Plasma testing occurred outside proper time; improper foundation. | Testing admissible as substantial compliance with the statute and conditions for plasma evidence with expert testimony. | plasma evidence admissible under Hassler and related authorities. |
| Whether admitting two hospital-lab witnesses as experts without formal Rule 16 reports violated Crim.R. 16 | The witnesses were experts; reports and qualifications should have been disclosed. | They were fact witnesses, not Crim.R. 16(K) experts; testimony admissible as prior suppression hearing testimony. | No error; witnesses were not required Rule 16 reports. |
Key Cases Cited
- Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (Supreme Court, 1966) (blood draws in DUI cases—arrest, exigency, and reasonableness)
- State v. Groves, 2010-Ohio-5089 (5th Dist. 2010) (constructive arrest when hospitalized; implied-consent logic applies)
- State v. May, 2010-Ohio-4594 (5th Dist. 2010) (exigent circumstances and admissibility of blood under Schmerber framework)
- State v. Capehart, 2011-Ohio-2602 (5th Dist. 2011) (reasonable procedures in blood extraction; admissibility)
- State v. Hassler, 2007-Ohio-4947 (Ohio Sup. Ct. 2007) (blood evidence admissible outside strict time frame with expert testimony)