State v. Moore, 2021 Ohio 2128

Background

On Nov. 14, 2017 Moore drove ~120 mph, struck a vehicle killing its driver; he was seriously injured and taken to a hospital.
Police obtained a search warrant for Moore’s blood at 11:46 p.m.; the blood was actually drawn about five hours after the crash.
Miami Valley Regional Crime Lab tested the sample and reported a BAC of .114 g/dL (± .011); a toxicologist (Bowles) prepared a supplemental report describing effects of that BAC on an average person.
A May 23, 2019 email from the prosecutor to MVRCL asked for a general expert report and referenced a prior death; MVRCL agreed and Bowles produced a May 29, 2019 report.
Moore was convicted of aggravated vehicular homicide; his direct appeal rejected suppression claims. While that appeal was pending he filed a postconviction petition alleging due‑process violation/collusion and ineffective assistance based on the prosecutor’s email and the lab report.
The trial court denied the petition without a hearing; the appellate court affirmed, holding the email‑based collusion claim was not barred by res judicata but did not show a constitutional deprivation or ineffective assistance warranting a hearing.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Moore’s postconviction collusion/due‑process claim is barred by res judicata	Res judicata: admissibility of blood and related testimony were litigated/known at trial and on appeal	Email evidence was outside the trial record and thus could not have been raised on direct appeal	Email‑based due‑process claim not barred by res judicata because it relied on evidence outside the record
Whether prosecutor’s May 23 email and Bowles’s report show collusion/deny due process	Email was a routine request for an expert report; no proof lab altered testing or was biased	Email and report show secret cooperation to produce favorable evidence and skew results	No evidence that email influenced testing or testimony; petitioner failed to allege operative facts showing collusion or due‑process violation
Whether trial counsel was ineffective for not using or disclosing the email/report at trial	Counsel reasonably avoided exposing prejudicial prior‑death information; strategy was sound	Counsel failed to notify Moore of exculpatory evidence and failed to use it to impeach lab witness	No ineffective‑assistance shown: counsel’s trial strategy reasonable and email was not exculpatory
Admissibility/weight of toxicologist testimony about general effects of .114 BAC	Expert testimony about average effects is proper and was cross‑examined	Report/testimony improperly generalized about an "imaginary person" and was thus misleading	Testimony about average effects was admissible; any objection could have been raised on direct appeal and is barred by res judicata

Key Cases Cited

State v. Hassler, 875 N.E.2d 46 (Ohio 2007) (blood drawn outside statutory window admissible in vehicular‑homicide prosecution with substantial compliance and expert testimony)
State v. Saxon, 846 N.E.2d 824 (Ohio 2006) (res judicata bars issues that could have been raised on direct appeal)
State v. Calhoun, 714 N.E.2d 905 (Ohio 1999) (standards for denying postconviction petition without a hearing)
State v. Gondor, 860 N.E.2d 77 (Ohio 2006) (postconviction petition must set forth sufficient operative facts to merit a hearing)
State v. Jackson, 413 N.E.2d 819 (Ohio 1980) (petitioner bears initial burden to submit evidentiary documents showing constitutional deprivation)
State v. Lawson, 164 N.E.3d 1130 (Ohio 2020) (claims relying on evidence outside the record are not cognizable on direct appeal)