2016 Ohio 3092
Ohio Ct. App.2016Background
- On Oct. 4, 2014, Sharnell Owens drove at high speed while intoxicated and rear-ended another vehicle; two occupants of the struck vehicle died. Owens was arrested at the scene and refused field sobriety and breath tests.
- Police obtained a search warrant for Owens’s blood; a nurse drew blood at ~5:30 a.m. (more than three hours after the ~11:30 p.m. crash). The blood alcohol result was .21.
- Owens was indicted for two counts of aggravated vehicular homicide (2nd-degree felonies) and one count of OVI (misdemeanor). She moved to suppress the blood-test results arguing noncompliance with Ohio Department of Health regulations and the three-hour statutory limit.
- At the suppression hearing the State presented testimony and an expert affidavit (Lucas County Coroner’s toxicologist) establishing chain of custody, storage, laboratory procedures, and permits; the trial court denied the motion.
- Owens pleaded no contest to all counts and received concurrent jail time for the OVI and consecutive maximum eight-year terms for each homicide (total 16 years). She appealed the suppression ruling and the sentence.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Owens's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of blood test drawn after three-hour statutory window | Blood drawn outside 3 hours is admissible in an R.C. 4511.19(A)(1)(a) (impaired-driving) prosecution if the State substantially complies with Dept. of Health regs; here State substantially complied and any timing lapse was de minimis | Suppression required because blood was not drawn within three hours and procedures did not strictly follow Ohio Adm. Code requirements | Court: Blood admissible; State showed substantial compliance; drawing after 3 hours was de minimis and Owens failed to show prejudice, so suppression denied |
| Sentence excessive / consecutive maximum terms | Trial court considered presentence report, facts (speed, high BAC), statutory sentencing purposes, and made required consecutive-sentence findings; sentence lawful and supported by record | 16-year consecutive sentence excessive given lack of prior prison time, remorse, and acceptance of responsibility | Court: Sentence not contrary to law or unsupported; consecutive maximum terms permissible and supported by findings; affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Burnside, 100 Ohio St.3d 152 (standard for appellate review of suppression and substantial-compliance analysis)
- State v. Hassler, 115 Ohio St.3d 322 (blood drawn after statutory window can be admissible in impaired-driving prosecutions if administrative requirements are substantially complied with)
- State v. Homan, 89 Ohio St.3d 421 (substantial compliance limited to de minimis deviations)
- State v. Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d 209 (requirement to make and incorporate R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings for consecutive sentences)
- City of Newark v. Lucas, 40 Ohio St.3d 100 (distinguishing per se offenses from impaired-driving prosecutions with respect to the role of test accuracy)