State v. Simpson

224 N.E.3d 586

2023-Ohio-3207

STATE of Ohio, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.Christine A. SIMPSON, Defendant-Appellant.

CASE NO. 1-22-79

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Third District, Allen County.

Date of Decision: September 11, 2023

Appeal from Allen County Common Pleas Court, Trial Court No. CR 2021 0406.

Kenneth J. Rexford, Lima, for Appellant.

John R. Willamowski, Allen County, for Appellee.

OPINION

MILLER, P. J.

{¶1} Defendant-appellant, Christine A. Simpson ("Simpson"), appeals the decision of the Allen County Court of Common Pleas denying her motion to suppress blood test results. Simpson also appeals that court’s December 1, 2022 judgment of sentence. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

{¶2} On October 17, 2021, Simpson was driving at a high rate of speed the wrong way on a one-way street. Her vehicle collided with another vehicle at the intersection of Union and North Streets in Lima, Allen County, Ohio, The other vehicle, which had four occupants, slid Onto its side after being struck by Simpson’s Vehicle. All four of the occupants in the other vehicle sustained injuries. This included the front passenger, who sustained a severe injury to her head that required portions of her ear to be removed, her head to be stitched and stapled, and the drilling of posts and studs into her skull to support a prosthetic ear. That victim was later diagnosed with a traumatic brain injury, wears a prosthetic ear, and has difficulty hearing.

Another passenger suffered a concussion and a major skull fracture.

{¶3} On the same day as the collision, a judge of the Allen County Court of Common Pleas issued a search warrant based on an affidavit submitted by one of the investigating officers. Among other things, the search warrant stated that Simpson was in the custody of the Lima Police Department at St. Rita’s Medical Center and that on her property or person:

THERE IS NOW BEING CONCEALED CERTAIN PROPERTY, NAMELY Whole Blood, Blood Serum, Blood Plasma or Urine, containing what is believed to be a prohibited amount of Alcohol, and possibly other drugs, in violation of the State of Ohio’s OVI statute, and per se legal limit for the metabolites of the above referenced drugs. WHICH ARE EVIDENCE OF THE CRIME OF OPERATION WHILE UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF ALCOHOL OR DRUG OF ABUSE (ORC 4511.19A1a) and AGGRAVATED VEHICULAR ASSAULT (ORC 2903.08a1A)

* * *

YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED TO SEARCH FORTHWITH THE PERSON NAMED FOR THE PROPERTY SPECIFIED, SERVING THIS WARRANT AND MAKING THE SEARCH AT ANY TIME IN THE DAYTIME OR NIGHT, THE COURT FINDING THAT REASONABLE CAUSE HAS BEEN SHOWN AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF THIS SEARCH WARRANT AT TIMES OTHER THAN DAYTIME, AND IF THE PROPERTY BE FOUND. THERE TO SEIZE IT, LEAVING A COPY OF THIS WARRANT AND A RECEIPT FOR THE PROPERTY TAKEN, AND PREPARE A WRITTEN INVENTORY OF THE PROPERTY SEIZED AND RETURN THIS WARRANT AND BRING THE PROPERTY BEFORE ME WITHIN THREE (3) DAYS OF THIS DATE, AS REQUIRED BY LAW.

{¶4} An Inventory and Receipt for Property Seized by Search Warrant, dated October 17, 2021, indicated that two vials of blood were taken from Simpson. The blood was tested, and the toxicology report indicated it had a blood alcohol content of 0.12%.

{¶5} On December 15, 2021, the Allen County Grand Jury indicted Simpson on four counts: three counts of operating a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol ("OVI"), pursuant to R.C. 4511.19, and one count of aggravated vehicular assault, pursuant to R.C. 2903.08(A)(1)(a) & (B)(1). On January 13, 2022, a superseding indictment charged Simpson with seven counts: three counts of OVI, pursuant to R.C. 4511.19, and four counts of aggravated vehicular assault, pursuant to R.C. 2903.08(A)(1)(a) & (B)(1). On December 20, 2021 and again on February 11, 2022, Simpson entered a written plea of not guilty to the original indictment and superseding indictment, respectively.

{¶6} On January 5, 2022, Simpson filed a motion to suppress the blood testing results. In support of her motion, Simpson argued that the testing was done without a warrant and/or was beyond the warrant’s authorization. More specifically, she argued that, despite a command in the warrant that the blood be brought before the common pleas judge within three days, it appeared that the police department sent the blood to the toxicology lab for testing and did not bring the blood to the judge.

{¶7} On March 9, 2022, following a hearing, the trial court denied Simpson’s motion to suppress. The trial court concluded that the ability to test the blood was im- plicit in the warrant. Additionally, the trial court concluded that "the command that the seized evidence be returned to the court in accordance with the law, specifically allows for law enforcement to retain this evidence and have it tested if needs be." (Mar. 9, 2022 Judgment Entry at 5). The trial court also said that "[r]eading the warrant along with the applicable law reveals that the command is to serve the warrant and prepare an inventory and receipt indicating what property was taken within three days." (Id. at 4).

{¶8} On October 20, 2022, Simpson entered pleas of No Contest to two of the four counts of aggravated vehicular assault, preserving her right to appeal the suppression denial. Each of the two counts Simpson pleaded to concerned one of the two victims whose injuries are specifically mentioned above. The other counts were dismissed pursuant to the plea negotiations.

{¶9} On November 30, 2022, the trial court held a sentencing hearing. The judge sentenced Simpson to consecutive mandatory terms of 60 months of imprisonment for one count and 36 months of imprisonment for the other count. This resulted in an aggregate imprisonment term of 96 months (eight years). The next day, the trial court filed its Judgment Entry of Sentencing. This appeal followed.

II. ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR

{¶10} On . December 27, 2022, Simpson timely filed a notice of appeal. She raises the following two assignments of error for our review:

First Assignment of Error

The Trial Court erred in denying the defense motion to suppress the fruits of an unlawful search of Defendant’s blood.

Second Assignment of Error

The Trial Court erred in sentencing Ms. Simpson to consecutive sentences.

III. DISCUSSION

A. First Assignment of Error

{¶11} In her first assignment of error, Simpson contends that, "[b]ecause law enforcement did not deliver the blood to the judge within three days and did not secure additional authorization for transfer of custody of that blood and then testing/searching of the blood itself, the testing of the blood exceeded the scope of the warrant and was thus warrantless." (Appellant’s Brief at 5). Therefore, according to Simpson, "the denial of her motion to suppress violated, her rights guaranteed to her both by the Ohio Constitution and the United. States Constitution." (Id.). She asserts the trial court erroneously denied her motion to suppress and asks that we reverse that decision with instruction to suppress the blood test results.

i. Standard of Review for a Motion to Suppress

[1–4] {¶12} "Appellate review of a motion to suppress presents a mixed question of law and fact." State v. Burnside, 100 Ohio St.3d 152, 2003-Ohio-5372, 797 N.E.2d 71, ¶ 8. At a suppression hearing, the trial court assumes the role of trier of fact and, as such, is in the best position to evaluate the evidence and the credibility of' witnesses. Id. See State v. Carter, 72 Ohio St.3d 545, 552, 651 N.E.2d 965 (1995). When reviewing a ruling on a motion to suppress, "an appellate court must accept the trial court’s findings of fact if they are supported by competent, credible evidence." Burnside at ¶ 8, citing State v. Fanning, 1 Ohio St.3d 19, 437 N.E.2d 583 (1982); With respect to the trial court’s conclusions of law, however, our standard of review is de novo, and we must independently determine whether the facts satisfy the applicable legal standard. Id., citing State v. McNamara, 124 Ohio App.3d 706, 707 N.E.2d 539 (4th Dist.1997).

ii. Applicable Law

[5] {¶13} "The provisions of Section 14, Article I of the Ohio Constitution are essentially the same" as the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. State v. Davis, 56 Ohio St.2d 51, 56, 381 N.E.2d 641 (1978), fn. 4; see also State v. Emerson, 134 Ohio St.3d 191, 2012-Ohio-5047, 981 N.E.2d 787, ¶ 15. Both constitutional provisions prohibit unreasonable searches and seizures, and they have the essential purpose to safeguard the privacy and security of individuals against arbitrary invasions by governmental officials. State v. Eads, 2020-Ohio-2805, 154 N.E.3d 538, ¶ 10 (1st Dist.). Specifically, the Fourth Amendment states: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The Ohio Constitution states; "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and possessions, against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated; and no warrant shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, particularly describing the place to be searched, and the person and things to be seized." Ohio Constitution, Article I, Section 14.

iii. Analysis Regarding the Blood Testing

[6] {¶14} Initially, it is important to understand what Simpson is challenging and what she is not. Simpson does not argue that the affidavit submitted by law enforcement in support of the warrant failed to establish probable cause that Simpson committed an OVI offense. She also does not argue that the judge erred in finding probable cause existed to issue the search warrant, including its command to search Simpson and seize her blood. Additionally, she does not argue that there...