Submitted by Co-Authors Robert G. Walton and Gretchen Ebner
The Relevant Evidentiary Statutes
R.C. 4511.19(D)(1)(a) provides, in part, that in a criminal prosecution for a violation of R.C. 4511.19(A)(1)(a) or its equivalent (impaired driving) the result of any test of any blood withdrawn and analyzed by a health care provider may be admitted with expert testimony to be considered with any other relevant and competent evidence in determining the guilt or innocence of the defendant. This is known as a test administered for medical purposes.
R.C. 4511.19(D)(1)(b) provides, in pertinent part, that in a criminal prosecution for a violation of R.C. 4511.19(A) or (B) or their equivalent (impaired driving or per se offense), a court may admit evidence of the concentration of alcohol in the defendant’s blood or other bodily substance at the time of the alleged violation, as shown by chemical analysis of the substance withdrawn within three hours of the alleged violation. The court may admit the evidence when a person submits to a blood or other bodily substance test at the request of a law enforcement officer under 4511.191 (implied consent), if the person gives actual consent to the officer, or the sample is obtained pursuant to a search warrant. The bodily substance withdrawn under this subsection must be analyzed in accordance with methods approved by the ODH by a person possessing a valid permit issued by the Director of Health. This is known as a test administered at the request of law enforcement for forensic purposes.
The language of the above-referenced subsections is clear and unambiguous and the provisions of each must be read in pari materia. Applying those principles, legal scholars have had no difficulty understanding the differences between the subsections and applying the relevant law to the facts. Continue reading