 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Mayl9/26/2003
. Defendant, John Mayl, appeals from his conviction and sentence for aggravated vehicular homicide, R.C. 2903.06(A)(1), which were entered on Mayl's plea of no contest after the trial court denied his Crim.R. 12(C)(3) motion to suppress evidence filed prior to trial.
. Defendant was arrested during the early morning hours of November 20, 2000, at Miami Valley Hospital, in Dayton. He was taken there after his vehicle struck and killed a construction worker who was working on improvements to Interstate Route 75 in downtown Dayton.
. A nurse at Miami Valley Hospital drew a sample of Mayl's blood for purposes of blood-alcohol analysis as well as medical treatment. Subsequent analysis reported a blood-alcohol level of 0.207.
. The nurse who drew defendant's blood testified that he smelled strongly of alcohol. So did a Dayton police officer who was at the hospital when Mayl arrived. Mayl told police that he had consumed a couple of beers while bowling.
. Mayl was indicted on a charge of aggravated vehicular homicide, R.C. 2903.06(A)(1). The indictment specified that he caused the victim's death "as a proximate result of committing a violation of division (A) of Section 4511.19 of the Revised Code or a substantially equivalent municipal ordinance."
. Defendant filed a motion to suppress evidence of this blood-alcohol test, any statements he made, and all other evidence that was illegally seized. Defendant argued in his memorandum, inter alia, that his blood-alcohol tests were "not sanctioned by the requirements of Ohio Revised Code 4511.19" and that " he provisions of the Ohio Administrative Code were violated, as they pertain to standards of observations, qualifications of personnel, and other provisions of the Ohio Administrative Code as they relate to the taking and keeping of blood samples."
. The trial court heard evidence on defendant's motion to suppress. With respect to evidence of his blood-alcohol tests, and citing the decision of this court in State v. Davis (1983), 13 Ohio App.3d 265, the court held that the testing requirements of R.C. 4511.19(D)(1) and Ohio Adm.Code 3701-53-05 are not applicable to prosecutions for aggravated vehicular homicide. Accordingly, the court overruled Mayl's motion as to those specific grounds for suppression of blood-alcohol test results, and further overruled the motion in all other respects.
. Mayl changed his previous not guilty plea to a plea of no contest. The trial court accepted that plea and entered a judgment of conviction for the offense charged. Mayl was sentenced to a four-year term of incarceration. He filed a timely notice of appeal. FIRST ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
. "The trial court erred in overruling appellant's motion to suppress evidence."
. R.C. 4511.19(A) and (B) prohibit driving while under the influence of alcohol or drugs or with a prohibited level of alcohol in certain bodily substances. Subdivision (B) pertains to violators who are less than twenty-one years of age. Subdivision (A) pertains to adults. It provides:
. "(A) No person shall operate any vehicle, streetcar, or trackless trolley within this state, if any of the following apply:
. "(1) The person is under the influence of alcohol, a drug of abuse, or alcohol and a drug of abuse;
. "(2) The person has a concentration of ten-hundredths of one per cent or more but less than seventeen-hundredths of one per cent by weight of alcohol in the person's blood.
. " *
. "(5) The person has a concentration of seventeen-hundredths of one per cent or more by weight of alcohol in the person's blood.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Ohio DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|