2024 Ohio 1648
Ohio Ct. App.2024Background
- Anthony Naylor was convicted in Portage County, Ohio, for aggravated vehicular homicide, aggravated vehicular assault, and related offenses after a fatal head-on collision while he was driving with marijuana metabolite in his system well above the legal limit.
- The accident resulted in the death of passenger Essence Shaw and serious injuries to driver Carlette Darby. Naylor’s erratic driving was witnessed by others, and he was found in possession of alcohol.
- A subsequent urine test revealed Naylor had nearly three times the legal threshold of marijuana metabolite. Naylor asserted that his driving error was due to mechanical failure, not impairment.
- The jury found Naylor guilty after the trial court excluded his proposed expert witness and overruled his constitutional and sufficiency challenges.
- Naylor appealed, raising four main issues: exclusion of expert testimony, prosecutorial misstatements, sufficiency of the evidence, and the constitutionality of Ohio’s per se marijuana metabolite law (R.C. 4511.19(A)(1)(j)(viii)(II)).
- The appellate court affirmed the convictions and remanded only for clerical corrections in the sentencing entry.
Issues
| Issue | Naylor's Argument | State's Argument | Held (Court's Ruling) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Exclusion of expert testimony | Proposed expert should testify on lack of impairment and test reliability | Testimony irrelevant to per se law; challenged method, not specific result | Properly excluded; per se offense does not require proof of impairment |
| Prosecutor's alleged misrepresentation during closing | Prosecutor misled jury by saying he was “per se impaired” | "Per se" offense language is accurate for this law | No plain error; characterization accurate under Ohio law |
| Sufficiency of evidence for homicide/assault | State failed to prove impairment or impact of metabolite on driving | Only need to prove operation above threshold and causation | Sufficient evidence; no need to prove actual impairment |
| Constitutionality of per se marijuana metabolite statute | Statute is vague and violates substantive due process | Statute provides clear notice; rationally related to road safety | Statute constitutional; rational and not void for vagueness |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Vega, 12 Ohio St.3d 185 (expert testimony cannot generally challenge reliability of legislatively-approved chemical tests)
- Defiance v. Kretz, 60 Ohio St.3d 1 (per se OVI offenses only require proof of operation and chemical result, not impairment)
- Newark v. Lucas, 40 Ohio St.3d 100 (focus for per se offenses is accuracy of test, not driver behavior)
- State v. Tanner, 15 Ohio St.3d 1 (per se BAC limits are constitutional; can challenge accuracy, not general reliability)
- State v. Maurer, 15 Ohio St.3d 239 (prosecutorial misconduct must deprive fair trial for reversal)
- State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (sufficiency standard for criminal convictions)
- State v. Topolosky, 2015-Ohio-4963 (metabolite OVI statute not void for vagueness or irrational)