State v. Morris
2012 Ohio 3210
Ohio Ct. App.2012Background
- Deputy Morton responded to a report of an intoxicated person who refused to leave a property at 12:57 a.m. on May 1, 2010.
- The intoxicated person fled in a silver Chevrolet Cavalier; Morris was later arrested and taken to Licking Memorial Hospital.
- A blood/urine collection kit was used; phlebotomist drew blood at 4:03 a.m. and confirmed the kit was provided by Deputy Morton.
- The blood sample was placed in a locked evidence refrigerator before 6:00 a.m. and later mailed to the Ohio State Patrol laboratory.
- The blood alcohol content was measured at .169; Morris was indicted for DUI and an OVI specification; he moved to suppress, the court denied, he pled no contest, and was sentenced to four years.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was there substantial compliance with ODH regulations for the blood sample? | State argues substantial compliance with OAC 3701–53–05(F) and related regulations. | Morris argues deficiencies in chain of custody and refrigeration undermine admissibility. | Yes, substantial compliance shown; admissible. |
| Was the blood test conducted within the three-hour window after operation? | Test conducted within three hours of operation. | Argues timing did not meet the window for admissibility. | Test performed within the three-hour window; admissible. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Plummer, 22 Ohio St.3d 292 (1986) (substantial compliance standard for refrigerated samples; admissibility under statute)
- State v. Burnside, 100 Ohio St.3d 152 (2003) (limits substantial compliance to de minimis errors; minor deviations)
- State v. Mayl, 106 Ohio St.3d 207 (2005) (substantial compliance where brief nonrefrigeration occurred)
- State v. Hassler, 115 Ohio St.3d 322 (2007) (retrograde extrapolation allowed; time of operation relevance)
- State v. DeJohn, 5th Dist. No. 06–CA–16, 2007–Ohio–163 (2007) (refrigeration issues; considered in substantial compliance analysis)