 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Endsley10/19/2005
e purpose of determining the alcohol, drug, or alcohol and drug content
{ } "The bodily substance withdrawn shall be analyzed in accordance with methods approved by the director of health by an individual possessing a valid permit issued by the director pursuant to section 3701.143 of the Revised Code."
{ } Appellant's blood was drawn, not at the direction of law enforcement officers, but by medical personnel for medical purposes. (Tr. 38-39). Appellee argues that because appellant's blood was not drawn at the request of a law enforcement officer, but rather by medical personnel for medical testing, R.C. 4511.19(D)(1)'s requirements and the ODH regulations do not apply.
{ } A recent Ohio Supreme Court decision is dispositive of this issue. In State v. Mayl, 106 Ohio St.3d 207, 2005-Ohio-4629, as in this case, the defendant pled no contest to aggravated vehicular homicide in violation of R.C. 2903.06(A)(1) after the trial court denied his motion to suppress blood test results. The trial court held that the testing requirements of R.C. 4511.19(D) and Ohio Admin. Code 3701-35-05 were not applicable to prosecutions for aggravated vehicular homicide. The defendant appealed arguing that the requirements do indeed apply. The Second District found that R.C. 4511.19(D)'s requirements, as well as the ODH regulations, apply to blood test results used in an R.C. 2903.06(A)(1) prosecution.
{ } The Supreme Court held:
{ } "When results of blood-alcohol tests are challenged in an aggravated vehicular-homicide prosecution that depends upon proof of an R.C. 4511.19(A) violation, the state must show substantial compliance with R.C. 4511.19(D)(1) and Ohio Adm.Code Chapter 3701-53 before the test results are admissible.
{ } "When a blood-alcohol test is not requested by law enforcement but is administered in connection with medical treatment by qualified medical personnel and analyzed in an accredited laboratory, the state must show substantial compliance with R.C. 4511.19(D)(1) and Ohio Adm.Code Chapter 3701-53 before the test results are admissible in a prosecution depending upon proof of an R.C. 4511.19(A) violation." Id. at paragraphs one and two of the syllabus.
{ } In reaching its holdings, the Court examined R.C. 4511.19(D)(1) and the regulations set out in the Administrative Code describing how bodily substance samples should be collected (Ohio Adm.Code 3701-53-05) and tested (Ohio Adm.Code 3701-53-03(A)), along with regulations requiring certification of personnel (Ohio Adm.Code 3701-53-07(A)) and laboratory requirements (Ohio Adm.Code 3701-53-06(A)). The Court noted that these regulations have been designed to ensure the accuracy of bodily substance test results. Id. at .
{ } The Court also examined the evidence presented at the suppression hearing. It noted that the state called medical personnel to testify about the procedures used in drawing and testing Mayl's blood. The nurse who drew his blood testified that it was done for medical purposes only. She noted that she used a non-alcohol substance to swab Mayl's skin and drew the blood into a vacuum-sealed, glass bottle. The vice president of the lab testified that the lab was certified by the College of American Pathologists, was federally registered for high-complexity testing, and complied with pertinent regulations governing clinical laboratories. The technologist who ran Mayl's test was certified by the Association of Clinical Pathologists. She stated that the blood sample was not refrigerated for one hour and 45 minutes before it was tested, but was refrigerated afterwards. Testimony also indicated that the machine used to test the blood was properly calibrated. Th
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Ohio DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|