State v. Kavlich, 51291
Decision Date | 12 December 1986 |
Docket Number | No. 51291,51291 |
Citation | 515 N.E.2d 652,33 Ohio App.3d 240 |
Parties | The STATE of Ohio, Appellee, v. KAVLICH, Appellant. * |
Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court
1. The physician-patient privilege provided by R.C. 2317.02(B) is unavailable to a defendant charged with aggravated vehicular homicide, because the public policy of enforcing the prohibition against aggravated vehicular homicide outweighs the policy considerations in support of the privilege.
2. Evidence that a driver of a car had a blood-alcohol level of .152 percent, veered over the center line, and collided head-on with an on-coming vehicle is sufficient to establish the element of recklessness for the crime of aggravated vehicular homicide. (R.C. 2903.06[A].)
3. A violence specification pursuant to R.C. 2941.143 may be included in an indictment for aggravated vehicular homicide, R.C. 2903.06(A), and is not subject to a motion to strike as surplusage.
John T. Corrigan, Pros. Atty. and H. Anthony Marolt, Cleveland, for appellee.
Gerald L. Steinberg, Cleveland, for appellant.
James Kavlich, defendant-appellant, was indicted for the following crimes: (1) two counts of aggravated vehicular homicide (of Laura Donnell and Frances Telekese) with driving under the influence of alcohol and violence specifications; and (2) driving under the influence of alcohol. (There was a nolle prosequi as to the driving under the influence count.)
Defense counsel filed a motion to suppress the results of a blood-alcohol test administered by defendant's treating physician on the ground that it violated the physician-patient privilege pursuant to R.C. 2317.02. The trial court overruled the motion to suppress.
Defendant pled no contest to the crimes charged. The prosecutor stated that the evidence would show that on October 19, 1984, at approximately 3:40 a.m., defendant was driving north on Warren Road. Defendant veered his car over the center line and struck an automobile head-on that was proceeding south, killing Laura Donnell, the passenger in the car, who was pronounced dead at 4:39 a.m. Frances Telekese, the driver, suffered injuries and ultimately died on November 15, 1984. 1 The coroner testified that the deaths were the result of the automobile collision.
Defendant was transported to the hospital for treatment of injuries he sustained. Defendant's physician ordered a blood analysis. The results of this test revealed that defendant's blood-alcohol content level was .152.
The court found defendant guilty as charged. Defendant filed the instant appeal, raising three assignments of error.
R.C. 2317.02 provides, in relevant part:
Appellant contends that pursuant to R.C. 2317.02, the court erred in allowing the results of his blood-alcohol tests to be used against him. Appellant recognizes that blood-alcohol test results were held admissible in State v. Dress (1982), 10 Ohio App.3d 258, 10 OBR 372, 461 N.E.2d 1312, and State v. Tu (1984), 17 Ohio App.3d 159, 17 OBR 291, 478 N.E.2d 830. Nevertheless, appellant argues that these decisions were made with "tortured reasoning" and should be ignored. To support his position, appellant points to several civil cases which discuss the physician-patient privilege. See, e.g., Baker v. Indus. Comm. (1939), 135 Ohio St. 491, 14 O.O. 392, 21 N.E.2d 593; Weis v. Weis (1947), 147 Ohio St. 416, 34 O.O. 350, 72 N.E.2d 245; In re Roberto (1958), 106 Ohio App. 303, 7 O.O.2d 63, 151 N.E.2d 37.
In Dress, supra, 10 Ohio App.3d at 261, 10 OBR at 375-376, 461 N.E.2d at 1317, the court noted that an increasing number of jurisdictions are disallowing application of the physician-patient privilege in criminal prosecutions. See State, In the Interest of M.P.C. (1979), 165 N.J.Super. 131, 397 A.2d 1092; State v Erickson (N.D.1976), 241 N.W.2d 854; State v. District Court of Iowa (Iowa 1974), 218 N.W.2d 641; State v. Bedel (Iowa 1971), 193 N.W.2d 121; State v. Betts (1963), 235 Ore. 127, 384 P.2d 198; State v. Bounds (1953), 74 Idaho 136, 258 P.2d 751. Cf. State v. Kuljis (1967), 70 Wash.2d 168, 171-172, 422 P.2d 480, 492. In holding that the court did not err in admitting the results of a blood-alcohol test in a driving while intoxicated case, the Dress court noted:
(Emphasis sic.) Dress, supra, 10 Ohio App.3d at 261-262, 10 OBR at 375-377, 461 N.E.2d at 1317-1318.
Similarly, in Tu, supra, where the defendant was charged with driving while intoxicated and vehicular homicide, the court held that the physician-patient privilege does not preclude the admission of blood-alcohol test results:
Tu, supra, 17 Ohio App.3d at 163, 17 OBR at 295, 478 N.E.2d at 834.
We conclude that the public policy of sensibly enforcing R.C. 2903.06 (aggravated vehicular homicide) outweighs the narrow policy considerations offered in support of the physician-patient privilege. Appellant's first assignment of error is overruled. 2
Although appellant incorrectly labels this assigned error in terms of weight of the evidence, in essence, he is contending that the facts recited by the prosecutor did not establish that he committed aggravated vehicular homicide. At most, appellant contends he committed vehicular homicide.
In State v. Thorpe (1983), 9 Ohio App.3d 1, 9 OBR 1, 457 N.E.2d 912, paragraph two of the syllabus, this court noted that:
See, also, Cleveland v. Technisort, Inc. (1985), 20 Ohio App.3d 139, 20 OBR 172, 485 N.E.2d 294, paragraph two of the syllabus.
The crime of aggravated vehicular homicide is defined in R.C. 2903.06(A) as follows:
"No person, while operating or participating in the operation of a motor vehicle, * * * shall recklessly cause the death of another." (Emphasis added.)
Vehicular homicide is similar to aggravated vehicular homicide except that it is couched in terms of negligence, not recklessness. R.C. 2903.07(A) reads as follows:
"No person,...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Gonzalez
...Ohio App.3d 258, 10 OBR 372, 461 N.E.2d 1312; State v. Tu (1984), 17 Ohio App.3d 159, 17 OBR 291, 478 N.E.2d 830; State v. Kavlich (1986), 33 Ohio App.3d 240, 515 N.E.2d 652. 32 See State v. Antill, supra, 176 Ohio St. at 65, 26 O.Q.2d 366, 197 N.E.2d 33 See State v. Dress (1982), 10 Ohio A......
-
State v. Small
...federal Constitutions."'" Beagle v. Walden (1997), 78 Ohio St.3d 59, 62, 676 N.E.2d 506, quoting State v. Kavlich (1986), 33 Ohio App.3d 240, 246, 515 N.E.2d 652 (Markus, C.J., concurring). Here, we have found a constitutional concern regarding the denomination of defendant as a "sexually o......
-
State v. Voland
...(1973), 40 Ohio App.2d 473, 69 O.O.2d 416, 320 N.E.2d 308, and has been likened to a firearm in the wrong hands. State v. Kavlich (1986), 33 Ohio App.3d 240, 515 N.E.2d 652. Here the facts show that defendant did more than leave a twelve year old in a running automobile. She gave that twelv......
-
State v. Gonzalez
...v. Dress (1982), 10 Ohio App.3d 258, 461 N.E.2d 1312; State v. Tu (1984), 17 Ohio App.3d 159, 478 N.E.2d 830; State v. Kavlich (1986), 33 Ohio App.3d 240, 515 N.E.2d 652. 32. See State v. Antill, supra, at 65. 33. See State v. Dress (1982), 10 Ohio App.3d 258, 261, 461 N.E.2d 1312. 34. See ......