Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
Date: 04-14-2020
Case Style:
STATE OF OHIO vs. JAMES WILLIAMS
Case Number: C-180574
Judge: Beth A. Myers
Court: IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO
HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO
Plaintiff's Attorney: Joseph T. Deters, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, and Mary Stier, Assistant
Prosecuting Attorney
Defendant's Attorney:
Need help finding a lawyer for representation for appealing the trial court’s judgment convicting him of aggravated vehicular homicide in Tennessee?
Call 918-582-6422. It's Free.
Description:
MoreLaw ReceptionistsVOIP Phone and Virtual Receptionist Services
Call 918-582-6422 Today
On June 22, 2015, a single vehicle automobile accident occurred when
a vehicle registered to Williams traveling on Ronald Reagan Cross County Highway
entered the median, where it struck a guard rail and went airborne. The vehicle
traveled down an embankment, somersaulted across Caldwell Road, and came to rest
on its passenger side. Jaytwan Smith was ejected from the vehicle and was
pronounced dead at the scene. Williams was found in the front passenger seat of the
vehicle, lying against the window with his back and head against the glovebox.
{¶4} Williams was charged with aggravated vehicular homicide in violation
of R.C. 2903.06(A)(1)(a) (for causing the death of another while operating a motor
vehicle while committing a violation of R.C. 4511.19(A)), aggravated vehicular
homicide in violation of R.C. 2903.06(A)(2)(a) (for causing the death of another
while operating a motor vehicle recklessly), operating a vehicle under the influence
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
3
of alcohol or drugs in violation of R.C. 4511.19(A)(1)(a), and operating a vehicle with
a prohibited concentration of alcohol in his blood in violation of R.C.
4511.19(A)(1)(f).
{¶5} Williams filed a motion to suppress certain statements that he made
after the accident before his Miranda rights had been read to him. He also sought to
suppress a blood-alcohol test, arguing that his blood had not been drawn in
compliance with the relevant Ohio Administrative Code regulations. Following a
hearing on the motion to suppress, the trial court denied the motion with respect to
statements made by Williams after the accident, but it granted the motion with
respect to the blood-alcohol test. As a result of the trial court’s ruling, the state
dismissed the charge for operating a vehicle with a prohibited concentration of
alcohol in his blood in violation of R.C. 4511.19(A)(1)(f).
{¶6} Williams additionally filed a motion in limine. As relevant to this
appeal, the motion sought to prevent not only the admission of the concentration
levels of alcohol and drugs found in his urine and blood, but the admission of any
evidence that his blood and urine tests showed the presence of drugs or alcohol to
prove the remaining charges. The hearing on the motion in limine was held before a
visiting judge. Both Williams and the state agreed that, based on the trial court’s
ruling on the motion to suppress, the results of the blood-alcohol test were not
admissible to prove the per se driving under the influence violation. But the state
argued that its expert witness, who had reviewed Williams’s medical records, was
permitted under R.C. 4511.19(D)(1)(a) to testify that Williams was under the
influence and appreciably impaired based on his blood-alcohol level and the fact that
he tested presumptively positive for cocaine and a marijuana metabolite. The trial
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
4
court ruled that it would allow the state’s expert “to testify to the fact that there was
alcohol, drugs, or whatever else, in the Defendant’s blood sample, but not the
numerical conclusion.” It further ordered that the numerical blood-alcohol test
result be redacted from Williams’s medical records.
{¶7} Williams was tried before a jury on the remaining charges. During
trial, the state presented testimony from several witnesses whom Williams had told
that he was driving the vehicle when the accident occurred. Springfield Township
firefighter and paramedic Alex Villanueva testified that he had responded to the
automobile accident, treated Williams on the scene, and transported him to the
hospital. Villanueva admitted that he was unaware if Williams had suffered a brain
injury, but he described Williams’s level of consciousness as “alert and oriented.”
Williams told Villanueva that he had been driving the vehicle and that he had not
been wearing a seatbelt. He also denied having consumed alcohol or taken drugs,
and Villanueva did not smell an odor of alcohol on Williams’s person.
{¶8} Federal Bureau of Investigation Agent Patricia Fuller testified that she
had been a Springfield Township Police Officer at the time of the accident and had
investigated the crash involving Williams. Agent Fuller spoke with Williams at the
hospital, and after initially stating that he did not remember what had happened,
Williams twice told her that he had been driving the vehicle when the crash occurred.
Williams also told Agent Fuller that Brian Harris had been the vehicle’s other
passenger. Agent Fuller detected an odor of alcohol on Williams. Williams appeared
to understand her questions, but Agent Fuller testified that she was unaware if
Williams had suffered a traumatic brain injury in the accident. Williams asked to
cease their conversation because he was groggy, but before she left the hospital,
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
5
Agent Fuller overheard Williams verify to a female companion that he had been
driving at the time of the accident.
{¶9} Smith’s mother, Stephanie Frazier Taylor, spoke with Williams at the
hospital the day after the accident. Frazier Taylor asked Williams if he had driven
drunk and killed her son, and he responded “yes.” Williams then apologized and
stated that he could not remember what had actually happened during the accident.
Williams appeared alert and had answered questions appropriately.
{¶10} Stephanie Jones Taylor, Williams’s girlfriend at the time of the
accident, testified that she visited Williams in the hospital after learning of the
accident. She stated that Williams was hysterical, and when asked if he had been
awake, stated that he was “in and out.” Williams initially told Jones Taylor that he
had been driving the vehicle during the accident, but later made inconsistent
statements to her about his role in the accident and would go “back and forth” as to
whether or not he had been driving.
{¶11} Jones Taylor testified that less than a week after the automobile
accident, she suffered a stroke. She acknowledged that she had suffered some shortterm memory loss after the stroke, but stated that she had not experienced any
memory loss regarding Williams’s accident. During her testimony, Jones Taylor
stated that Williams’s biggest fear was that “he didn’t want to go back to the
penitentiary because he would disappoint his family.” Defense counsel immediately
objected and moved for a mistrial. The trial court denied the motion for a mistrial
and instructed the state to inform the witness not to make any reference to Williams
having been previously incarcerated.
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
6
{¶12} Former Springfield Township Police Officer Tom Prichard, who had
investigated the automobile accident, testified that the vehicle involved in the
accident was registered to Williams. Officer Prichard described the path that the
vehicle had traveled during the accident. He testified that Williams was found lying
on the front-passenger window of the vehicle, with his back and head up against the
glove box. He also identified for the jury where Smith’s body was found after it had
been ejected from the vehicle. Officer Prichard testified that he had spoken to
Williams at the hospital a few days after the accident. At the time of their
conversation, Williams was in the Intensive Care Unit, but appeared to be coherent.
Williams denied driving the vehicle at the time of the accident, and told Officer
Prichard that someone named “J-Tone” had been the vehicle’s other occupant. He
also stated that he had been out at a bar with Smith prior to the accident.
{¶13} Officer Prichard discussed the accident report that he had prepared.
The report noted that excess speed and the presence of alcohol were contributing
factors to the crash. It additionally stated that cocaine and marijuana were found in
Williams’s system, but it did not specify any specific amount of those drugs and it
noted that the results of those tests were unconfirmed.
{¶14} DNA testing was conducted on multiple items obtained from
Williams’s car. Tracy Sundermeier, a serologist in the Hamilton County Coroner’s
Laboratory, testified that she had tested the vehicle’s driver airbag and obtained a
mixed DNA profile from it that consisted of a major profile and two minor profiles.
She determined that Williams was the source of the major DNA profile, and excluded
Smith as a donor to that profile. Sundermeier was also able to obtain a DNA profile
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
7
from a blood stain on the front-passenger airbag. That profile also matched Williams
and excluded Smith as a donor.
{¶15} Robert Topmiller, Chief of Toxicology in the Hamilton County
Coroner’s Laboratory, testified as an expert for the state. Topmiller had examined
Williams’s medical records, specifically looking at the toxicology testing that had
been done at the hospital. He testified that the records established that alcohol was
present in Williams’s blood serum and that Williams’s urine screen was
presumptively positive for cocaine and THC, which he explained was the main active
ingredient in marijuana. Topmiller then discussed the potential effect that these
substances can have on a person.
{¶16} George Jerome Shaw, III, an attending physician at the University of
Cincinnati Medical Center, testified as an expert for Williams. Shaw testified that
Williams had suffered a traumatic brain injury in the accident. This diagnosis was
based on the results of a CT scan and the results of a neurobehavioral cognitive
status examination, which showed mild to moderate impairment in Williams’s
neurologic function. Shaw noted that Williams’s medical records indicated that he
was unable to provide any additional history of the incident due to intoxication, and
he testified that Williams’s inability to provide this information could have been the
result of the traumatic brain injury rather than intoxication. He further questioned
the reliability of Williams’s memory of the accident.
{¶17} The jury returned guilty verdicts on all counts. At sentencing, the trial
court merged the offenses of aggravated vehicular homicide in violation of R.C.
2903.06(A)(2)(a) and operating a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol or
drugs in violation of R.C. 4511.19(A)(1)(a) into the offense of aggravated vehicular
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
8
homicide in violation of R.C. 2903.06(A)(1)(a), and it imposed a sentence of 8 years
in prison.
Motion for a Mistrial
{¶18} In his first assignment of error, Williams argues that the trial court
erred in denying his motion for a mistrial after Jones Taylor testified that he had
previously been to the penitentiary.
{¶19} We review the trial court’s ruling on a motion for a mistrial for an
abuse of discretion. State v. Jones, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-180091, 2019-Ohio4862, ¶ 74. A mistrial should only be granted when a fair trial is no longer possible,
and not solely because an error or irregularity in the proceeding has occurred. Id.
An abuse of discretion connotes more than an error of law or of judgment, and
indicates an unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable attitude by the trial court.
Pembaur v. Leis, 1 Ohio St.3d 89, 91, 437 N.E.2d 1199 (1982).
{¶20} In response to a question from the prosecutor as to whether she and
Williams had any additional conversations about the accident after a certain point in
time, Jones Taylor testified that Williams had stated that his biggest fear was that
“he didn’t want to go back to the penitentiary because he would disappoint his
family.” Defense counsel immediately objected and moved for a mistrial, arguing
that Williams could not be rehabilitated in the eyes of the jury, which would now
presume that he had a criminal record.
{¶21} Testimony that Williams had previously served time in a penitentiary
would be impermissible other-acts evidence under Evid.R. 404(B). But the state did
not directly ask Jones Taylor a question about Williams’s criminal history or prior
incarceration. Rather, the testimony was volunteered by the witness in response to
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
9
the state’s question regarding conversations between Jones Taylor and Williams
about the accident. Other than this brief reference from Jones Taylor, the jury heard
no testimony about Williams’s prior record and was unaware of what offense he had
committed. We cannot find that this isolated, vague statement from Jones Taylor
deprived Williams of a fair trial. See State v. Daniels, 1st Dist. Hamilton Nos. C950347 and C-950348, 1996 WL 72277, *2 (Feb. 21, 1996).
{¶22} The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Williams’s
motion for a mistrial. The first assignment of error is overruled.
Admission of Evidence Concerning Alcohol and Drugs
{¶23} In his second assignment of error, Williams argues that the trial court
erred in admitting testimony and evidence concerning the presence of alcohol,
cocaine, and THC in his blood and urine. We review the trial court’s admission of
evidence for an abuse of discretion. State v. Jones, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-170647,
2020-Ohio-281, ¶ 30; State v. Sage, 31 Ohio St.3d 173, 510 N.E.2d 343 (1987),
paragraph two of the syllabus.
{¶24} Williams acknowledges that the trial court prohibited the
concentration levels found in his urine and blood from being admitted into evidence,
but argues that it was error to allow Officer Prichard and Topmiller to testify that
alcohol, cocaine, and marijuana had been in his system because the chemical tests of
his bodily substances were not conducted in compliance with the relevant Ohio
Administrative Code regulations.
{¶25} In support of his argument, Williams relies on State v. Mayl, 106 Ohio
St.3d 207, 2005-Ohio-4629, 833 N.E.2d 1216 (2005). In Mayl, the Ohio Supreme
Court held that “[w]hen results of blood-alcohol tests are challenged in an
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
10
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.” Id. at paragraph one of the syllabus. Williams argues that under Mayl,
any testimony that alcohol and drugs were found in his system was not admissible
because the state never demonstrated that the blood and urine tests were conducted
in substantial compliance with the Ohio Revised and Administrative Code
provisions.
{¶26} In Mayl, the court relied on R.C. 4511.19(D)(1) to reach its
determination. R.C. 4511.19(D)(1) has been amended subsequent to the Mayl
decision. It now includes the following language:
In any criminal prosecution or juvenile court proceeding for a violation
of division (A)(1)(a) of this section or for an equivalent offense that is
vehicle-related, the result of any test of any blood or urine withdrawn
and analyzed at any health care provider, as defined in section 2317.02
of the Revised Code, 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.
R.C. 4511.19(D)(1)(a).
{¶27} In State v. Davenport, 12th Dist. Fayette No. CA208-01-011, 2009-
Ohio-557, the court analyzed amended R.C. 4511.19(D)(1)(a). It considered whether
the results of a blood-alcohol test that had not been conducted in substantial
compliance with the relevant Ohio Administrative Code regulations were admissible
in a prosecution for operating a vehicle under the influence of alcohol in violation of
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
11
R.C. 4511.19(A)(1)(a) and for aggravated vehicular homicide in violation of R.C.
2903.06(A)(1)(a). The Davenport court held that:
[T]he General Assembly, by passing Am.Sub.H.B. No. 461 which
enacted R.C. 4511.19(D)(1)(a), chose to create a distinction between
prosecutions for “per se” and “under the influence” violations in regard
to the use of blood-alcohol test results. Therefore, we find that the
General Assembly’s passage of Am.Sub. H.B. No. 461 was made in
direct response to Mayl and created a distinction between “per se”
violations and the general “under the influence” violation not found in
the former R.C. 4511.19(D)(1).
* * *
By applying the plain language of R.C. 4511.19(D)(1)(a), we hold that
the results of “any test of any blood ” may be admitted with expert
testimony and considered with any other relevant and competent
evidence in order to determine the guilt or innocence of the defendant
for purposes of establishing a violation of division R.C.
4511.19(A)(1)(a), or “an equivalent offense,” including aggravated
vehicular homicide in violation of R.C. 2903.06(A)(1)(a), so long as the
blood was withdrawn and analyzed at a “health care provider” as
defined by R.C. 2317.12. (Emphasis added.) Accordingly, appellant’s
arguments, pursuant to R.C. 4511.19(D)(1)(b), and in regard to the
state’s failure to demonstrate substantial compliance with ODH
regulations due to the lack of an established chain of custody and the
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
12
preservation and labeling of his blood sample, are no longer
applicable.
Id. at ¶ 15-16.
{¶28} Several of our other sister districts have reached similar conclusions.
In State v. Bugg, 9th Dist. Medina No. 17CA0087-M, 2018-Ohio-2544, ¶ 12, which
involved a prosecution for aggravated vehicular homicide, the court held that under
amended R.C. 4511.19(D)(1)(a), “substantial compliance with Ohio Adm.Code
Chapter 3701-53 is no longer required for admissibility purposes if the defendant’s
blood is drawn and analyzed by a health care provider, and is accompanied by expert
testimony.” And in State v. Persinger, 2016-Ohio-858, 60 N.E.3d 831, ¶ 18 (3d
Dist.), the court determined that R.C. 4511.19(D)(1)(a) was enacted in response to the
Ohio Supreme Court’s decision in Mayl. The defendant in Persinger had been
charged with multiple offenses, including aggravated vehicular homicide and
operating a vehicle while under the influence. The court held that the state did not
need to demonstrate substantial compliance with Ohio Administrative Code
regulations before admitting the defendant’s blood-alcohol content to establish a
violation of R.C. 4511.19(A)(1)(a). Id. at ¶ 19.
{¶29} We agree with our sister districts’ interpretation of amended R.C.
4511.19(D)(1)(a). Williams was charged with aggravated vehicular homicide in
violation of R.C. 2903.06(A)(1)(a) and operating a vehicle under the influence of
alcohol or drugs in violation of R.C. 4511.19(A)(1)(a). Under the plain language of
R.C. 4511.19(D)(1)(a), the state was not required to show substantial compliance with
the Administrative Code regulations before the results of Williams’s blood and urine
tests could be admitted as evidence of his guilt to prove these offenses, as long as the
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
13
other requirements in R.C. 4511.19(D)(1)(a) were met. See Bugg at ¶ 12. And here,
the concentration levels of alcohol and drugs found in Williams’s blood and urine
were never even admitted into evidence. The trial court only allowed evidence that
alcohol, cocaine, and THC had been found in Williams’s system, and this was
accompanied by expert testimony.
{¶30} The trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing testimony and
evidence concerning the presence of alcohol, cocaine, and THC in Williams’s bodily
substances. Williams’s second assignment of error is overruled.
Manifest Weight of the Evidence
{¶31} In his third assignment of error, Williams argues that his convictions
for aggravated vehicular homicide and driving under the influence of alcohol or
drugs were contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence.
{¶32} The charges for aggravated vehicular homicide in violation of R.C.
2903.06(A)(2)(a) and driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs in violation of
R.C. 4511.19(A)(1)(a) were merged at sentencing with the charge for aggravated
vehicular homicide in violation of R.C. 2903.06(A)(1)(a). No sentence was imposed
for either offense, and Williams was not convicted of those offenses. Because no
judgment of conviction was entered, we do not consider a challenge to the weight of
the evidence for the offenses of aggravated vehicular homicide in violation of R.C.
2903.06(A)(2)(a) and driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs. See State v.
Cooper, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-180401, 2019-Ohio-2813, ¶ 15.
{¶33} In reviewing a challenge to the weight of the evidence, we sit as a
“thirteenth juror.” State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 387, 678 N.E.2d 541
(1997). We must review the entire record, weigh the evidence, consider the
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
14
credibility of the witnesses, and determine whether the trier of fact clearly lost its
way and created a manifest miscarriage of justice. Id.
{¶34} Williams was convicted of aggravated vehicular homicide in violation
of R.C. 2903.06(A)(1)(a), which provides that “[n]o person, while operating or
participating in the operation of a motor vehicle * * * shall cause the death of another
* * * [a]s the proximate result of committing a violation of division (A) of section
4511.19 of the Revised Code or of a substantially equivalent municipal ordinance.”
Williams specifically contends that the weight of the evidence did not establish that
he had been driving the vehicle at the time of the accident.
{¶35} The evidence presented at trial established that Williams told four
separate persons that he had been driving the vehicle when the automobile accident
occurred. While being transported to the hospital, Williams told paramedic Alex
Villanueva that he had been the driver of the vehicle. He made the same admission
to both Agent Fuller and to Smith’s mother when they spoke with him at the hospital.
And finally, Williams admitted to his then-girlfriend Stephanie Jones Taylor that he
had been driving the vehicle during the accident.
{¶36} Contradicting these admissions, the jury heard further testimony from
Jones Taylor that Williams had begun to go “back and forth” as to whether he had
been the driver or the passenger of the vehicle, and that he had denied driving the
vehicle to Officer Prichard. The jury additionally was able to consider the testimony
from Williams’s expert that Williams had suffered a traumatic brain injury and that
his memory of the accident was not reliable. The jury was in the best position to
judge the credibility of the witnesses. See State v. DeHass, 10 Ohio St.2d 230, 227
N.E.2d 212 (1967), paragraph one of the syllabus. It was entitled to weigh this
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
15
evidence, consider Williams’s motivation at the time that the statements were made,
and elect to believe some, all, or none of the testimony offered.
{¶37} In addition to Williams’s admissions that he had been driving at the
time of the accident, the state presented evidence that the vehicle involved in the
accident was registered to Williams and that Williams’s DNA was the source of the
major DNA profile found on the driver’s airbag. The jury’s determination that
Williams had been driving the vehicle at the time of the accident was not against the
weight of the evidence.
{¶38} This was not the rare case in which the jury lost its way and committed
such a manifest miscarriage of justice in finding Williams guilty that his conviction
must be reversed. See Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d at 387, 678 N.E.2d 541. We hold
that Williams’s conviction for aggravated vehicular homicide was not against the
manifest weight of the evidence. The third assignment of error is overruled.
Cumulative Error
{¶39} In his fourth assignment of error, Williams argues that the cumulative
effect of the errors that occurred at trial deprived him of a fair trial. Having rejected
Williams’s assignments of error and found the presence of no error, harmless or
otherwise, we reject Williams’s cumulative error argument.
Outcome: The fourth assignment of error is overruled, and the judgment of the
trial court is accordingly affirmed.
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments: