Posts Tagged ‘aggravated vehicular homicide’

Repeat Offenders: Increased Penalties for Multiple OVIs in Ohio

September 20th, 2010
The flag of Ohio.

Image via Wikipedia

A second offense OVI in Ohio will result in mandatory “party plates,” ignition interlock devises, a mandatory one year license suspension, mandatory drug/alcohol treatment and increases the mandatory incarceration period to ten (10) consecutive days minimum.  In addition, your vehicle will be immobilized (“clubbed”) for 90 days.  If you blow above a .17 or refuse to take the chemical test having had a prior offense within the past twenty (20) years, you will face a twenty (20) day mandatory incarceration period.  All second OVI offenses in Ohio are classified as a first degree misdemeanors.

On a third offense OVI (under .17), in addition to the penalties above, the mandatory incarceration period is raised to thirty (30) days and your car (if registered in your name) will be forfeited.  On a third low-tier OVI (under .17) you will have a mandatory fine of $850.  If over .17, or if you have a two refusals in the last twenty (20) years, you face sixty (60) days of mandatory incarceration. A third offense DUI (hi-tier and low-tier) is an unclassified misdemeanor.

A fourth offense OVI becomes a felony (F-4), and raises the minimum fine to $1,350 for tests below a .17.  Incarceration in a local facility (not prison) is permitted, but must be served for a minimum of sixty (60) days.  A high-tier (SUPER-DUI >.17) carries a 120 day mandatory incarceration period.

Aggravated Vehicular Homicide, O.R.C. 2903.06,  is a crime that results from the death of another caused by the defendant’s operating a vehicle while impaired (a violation of R.C. 4511.19)  or while driving negligently or recklessly.  The statute  encompasses driving an automobile recklessly or negligently (called Vehicular homicide) whether or not alcohol played a part in the death.  Often, defendants are indicted for multiple counts, with additional counts for each victim of the accident.  Under the reckless section of the statute you will be found guilty of a third degree felony which rises to a second degree felony if the driver is under suspension at the time of the offense.  Aggravated vehicular homicide when impaired as defined in R.C. 4511.19 is a second degree felony which rises to a first degree felony if the driver was under suspension at the time of the offense. Penalties include mandatory prison terms with a penalty of up to 10 years in prison and a $20,000 fine for the 1st degree felony and prison up to 8 years and a fine up to $15,000 for the 2nd degree felony.

For a previous post on aggravated vehicular homicide, please visit HERE.

For a previous post on aggravated vehicular assault and vehicular assault, please visit HERE.

See the following PENALTY CHART which is maintained by the honorable Jennifer P. Weiler in her work with the Ohio Supreme Court Judicial College.

If you are stopped on suspicion of drunk driving, contact Dayton DUI defense attorney Charles Rowland today at 937-318-1DUI (318-1384); 1-888-ROWLAND (888-769-5263); by texting DaytonDUI (one word) to 50500 or by visiting www.DaytonDUI.com.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Ohio DUI Law Allows Expanded Blood Draws

September 13th, 2010
A paramedic preparing a intra-venous infusion ...

Image via Wikipedia

A law that takes effect Friday will allow emergency medical workers to draw blood from drivers who crash and are merely suspected of using drugs or alcohol.  Currently, only physicians, registered nurses, qualified technicians, chemists and phlebotomists can take blood from drivers suspected of operating vehicles while under the influence.

Adding emergency medical workers would allow samples to be drawn sooner, but that raises several serious questions.  Can drivers be forced to give a sample? Who will train EMS workers to use the different police collection kits? What is the chain of command when dealing with evidence? Would this interfere with patient care?  Paramedics start IVs to help patients in need. Drawing two vials of blood from that catheter risks blowing the patient’s vein and having to put in a second IV.  The laws adoption allows fire departments to opt out of participating, and there are no final rules guiding EMS agencies.

Dayton, Ohio DUI attorney Charles Rowland asks, “Are we so zealous to arrest and prosecute potential offenders, that we risk patient care and put lives at risk?  Will the people who are charged with patient care share the zeal for prosecution to an extent that patients may die or undergo unnecessary procedures?”

Enhanced by Zemanta

Ohio OVI Law: State v. Ridenour

August 30th, 2010
Welcome Mat
Image by dumbeast via Flickr

State v. Ridenour, 2010-Ohio-3373, 4th District Court of Appeals

July 19: Here, the Defendant was involved in a fatal accident and law enforcement suspected OVI.  A trooper obtained a search warrant for the Defendant’s blood  from a Meigs County Judge.  This created an issue as the Defendant was being treated  in a hospital in neighboring Gallia County.  The resulting blood test revealed a BAC of .176.  Defendant challenged the faulty search warrant via a motion to suppress.  The motion was denied and the Defendant was convicted of Aggravated Vehicular Assault.

The 4th District Court of Appeals held that there was a  “technical” violation of Crim.R. 41(A), which states: “A search warrant authorized by this rule may be issued by a judge of a court of record to search and seize property located within the court’s territorial jurisdiction, upon the request of a prosecuting attorney or a law enforcement officer”, the technical violation does not require exclusion of the evidence.  The court indicated, in dicta, that it would have also permitted admission of the evidence under a Schmerber analysis.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Ohio’s Habitual Offender Registry

August 25th, 2010
The Scarlet Letter (1926 film)

Image via Wikipedia

If you have an OVI conviction after September 30, 2008 and you have four or more prior OVI (or equivalent) convictions in the past 20 years, you will be placed on the Ohio Habitual Offender Registry.  The Registry includes the name, address, and date of birth of offenders as well as their date of convictions.  The Registry is accessible to the public.  Offenders remain on the Registry until they no longer have five or more offenses within the past 20 years.

The following offenses constitute “equivalent offenses” for purposes of the statute: Physical Control Offenses (O.R.C. 4511.194); Misdemeanor OVI convictions (both test and refusal cases); OVUAC (underage/juvenile OVI); DUID (driving under the influence of drugs); OVI while operating under a Commercial Driver’s License; Vehicular Assaults (including aggravated vehicular assaults); Vehicular manslaughter; Involuntary manslaughter with alcohol; Vehicular homicide (including aggravated vehicular homicide);

If you face placement on Ohio’s Habitual Offender Registry, please CONTACT Dayton Ohio DUI lawyer Charles M. Rowland II at 937-318-1DUI (318-1384), 1-888-ROWLAND (888-769-5263), or text DaytonDUI (one word) to 50500.  www.DaytonDUI.com has proudly served Dayton and the Miami Valley for over 15 years. “ALL I DO IS DUI DEFENSE

Enhanced by Zemanta

Ohio Breath Test Law; the 3-hour Rule

June 7th, 2010

Substantial Compliance Requires Collection Within Three Hours.

R.C. 4511.19(D) sets forth a three-hour time limitation for the collection of bodily substances for alcohol and/or drug testing.  This rule is a change from Ohio‘s previous law which gave the State only two hours in which to obtain a sample.

The time requirement has been adopted by the Ohio Supreme Court in Cincinnati v. Sand, 43 Ohio St.2d 79, 330 N.E.2d 908 (1975) and more definitively at Newark v. Lucas, 40 Ohio St.3d 100, 532 N.E.2d 130 (1988),  where the court held that tests in test cases (cases involving a violation of the prohibited alcohol level) the would only be admissible when drawn within the time limitations of the statutes.  What about in refusal cases?

After some confusion following the Lucas decision, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled in State v. Mayl, 106 Ohio St.3d 207, 833 N.E.2d 1216 (2005) that the state must show substantial compliance with R.C. 4511.19(D) and the Department of Health regulations before the test results are admissible.  A door for use outside of the three-hour limitation  exists, however.  In Columbus v. Taylor, 39 Ohio St. 3d 162, 529 N.E.2d 1382, the Court gave trial court’s broad discretion to allow in retrograde extrapolation evidence if properly supported by an expert.  In State v. Hassler, 115 Ohio St.3d 322, 875 N.E.2d 46 (2007), the Supreme Court back-tracked on its Mayl decision in an aggravated vehicular homicide case, allowing in expert-supported testimony of a blood test drawn more than seven (7) hours after an accident.  This may be a return to the Lucas rule or it may be a case that is limited only to aggravated vehicular homicide cases.

DUI trial counsel will need to establish a time-line of the incident.  A common scenario in which the three-hour limitation is raised is in situations where the police did not witness operation of the vehicle, like in an accident.  Another possible issue that trial counsel can raise is a challenge to the “beyond the three hour test” is an Evidence Rule 403 argument that the probative value of the evidence is outweighed by the unfair prejudice of its admission.

Sources for this article include Intoxication Test Evidence, Fitzgerald & Hume and Ohio Driving Under the Influence Law, 2009-2010 ed.,  Weiler & Weiler