State v. Thompson
2012 Ohio 2559
Ohio Ct. App.2012Background
- Thompson’s car collided with another on Bear Swamp Road; the other driver was seriously injured.
- Thompson cried at the scene and appeared intoxicated; she consented to a blood draw at Summa Wadsworth-Rittman Hospital.
- Blood test showed a blood alcohol content of .310, roughly four times the legal limit.
- A grand jury indicted Thompson on three counts of aggravated vehicular assault; she moved to suppress the blood test.
- The trial court held hearings, found substantial compliance with the Administrative Code, and denied suppression.
- Thompson pleaded no contest; the court ruled two offenses were allied, sentenced Thompson to two years; appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the State substantially comply with the blood-test regulations? | Thompson | Thompson | Substantial compliance shown; admission upheld |
| Should Kozlowsky’s testimony be disregarded for lack of personal recall/expertness? | Thompson | Thompson | Testimony properly relied on; admissible hearsay at suppression stage allowed |
| Should Adelman’s testimony be disregarded for lack of personal recall/expertness? | Thompson | Thompson | Testimony properly relied on; admissible hearsay at suppression stage allowed |
| Is mandatory minimum sentencing under R.C. 2903.08(D)(1) constitutional as applied or facially? | Thompson | Thompson | Constitutionality upheld; facial and applied challenges rejected |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Mills, 62 Ohio St.3d 357 (1992) (review of suppression is mixed law and fact)
- State v. Burnside, 100 Ohio St.3d 152 (2003-Ohio-5372) (substantial compliance burden; presumption of admissibility; prejudice focus later)
- State v. Conley, 9th Dist. No. 08CA009454 (2009-Ohio-910) (reviewing trial court factual findings de novo on suppression)
- State v. Hoder, 9th Dist. No. 08CA0026 (2009-Ohio-1647) (substantial compliance framework for blood test admissibility)
- State v. Slates, 9th Dist. No. 25019 (2011-Ohio-295) (substantial compliance may be shown by testimony at suppression hearing)
- State v. Banks, 9th Dist. No. 25279 (2011-Ohio-1039) (mandatory minimum penalties are within legislative power; constitutional as applied)
- State v. Embry, 12th Dist. No. CA2003-11-110 (2004-Ohio-6324) (minor procedural deviations allowed under substantial compliance)
- State v. McNamara, 124 Ohio App.3d 706 (1997) (appellate review of suppression uses independent standards)