Login | February 21, 2025
Driver whose friend was killed in accident loses his appeal
JESSICA SHAMBAUGH
Special to the Legal News
Published: December 12, 2014
The 4th District Court of Appeals issued an opinion recently affirming a vehicular homicide conviction for a man found guilty of causing an accident that killed one of his friends and injured two others.
Kyle Roar appealed his convictions from the Pike County Court of Common Pleas, arguing that they were based on blood test results that should have been suppressed.
The three-judge appellate panel found that the lower court properly denied Roar’s motion to suppress because the investigating trooper was justified in taking the blood sample.
“After reviewing the record, we overrule appellant’s assignments of error and affirm the judgment of the trial court,” Judge Matthew McFarland wrote on behalf of the 4th District.
The facts of the case state that Roar was driving a vehicle near the intersection of Route 23 and Route 32 in Pike County a little after midnight on Sept. 8, 2012.
He had three passengers in his car at that time, including Alicia Vanhoose in the front and two others in the back.
As Roar tried to turn left onto Route 32, case summary states that he failed to yield to an oncoming pickup truck and the two collided.
The truck struck the passenger side of Roar’s vehicle, killing Vanhoose and injuring the others.
Roar and the backseat passengers were then taken to Pike Community Hospital.
While Roar was in the emergency room, Trooper Samuel Davis spoke to him for about 30 minutes, reading him his Miranda rights and taking his statement.
Davis also received a sample of Roar’s blood and submitted it for a lab analysis.
Test results showed alcohol in Roar’s blood below the legal limit. However, it also showed a marijuana metabolite above the legal set limit.
Based on those test results, Roar was indicted and charged with aggravated vehicular homicide and four counts of aggravated vehicular assault.
He pleaded not guilty to all counts and filed a motion to suppress, claiming the blood specimen was unlawfully taken.
The common pleas court found that the trooper had reasonable suspicion and proper exigent circumstances to take the blood and denied Roar’s motion.
He then withdrew his pleas and entered no contest pleas to one count of aggravated vehicular homicide and two counts of aggravated vehicular assault.
The trial court accepted those pleas, found him guilty and sentenced him to a total of four years in prison and a lifetime driver’s license suspension.
On direct appeal, Roar argued that his motion to suppress should have been granted for several reasons.
First, he asserted that Davis lacked probable cause to believe his blood would contain evidence of a crime.
In that regard, Davis testified that the troopers on the scene called him to tell him about a “serious injury crash with one fatality.”
They also told him they suspected “foul play” because they found containers of alcohol in one of the vehicles.
Davis explained that he had worked with those troopers in prior cases and believed they were giving him reliable information.
He further noted that Roar was “very lethargic” during their conversation and had glassy eyes.
When Davis conducted a horizontal nystagmus test, he said Roar displayed six clues indicating impairment.
He testified he read Roar the “Consequences of Test and Refusal” form and Roar consented to a blood draw.
“Based upon the testimony, we conclude there was probable cause for Trooper Davis to believe appellant’s blood would contain evidence of a crime,” Judge McFarland stated.
The judges cited Roar’s lethargic nature, glassy eyes, failed horizontal gaze test and the alcohol containers at the scene as evidence granting Davis probable cause.
Roar next argued that there were no exigent circumstances granting exception to the warrant requirement for taking his blood.
The appellate judges noted that the longer Davis waited to take Roar’s blood, the more any evidence would be metabolized and lost.
“As such, we find the trial court did not err in finding that the exigent circumstances justified the taking of appellant’s blood without a search warrant,” Judge McFarland wrote.
In his final assignment of error, Roar contended that his consent was not voluntary because he was strapped to a backboard at the hospital, with his neck immobilized awaiting treatment for trauma.
“The issue of the voluntariness of appellant’s consent given under these circumstances is moot, however, based on our having found that there was probable cause to arrest appellant and that exigent circumstances existed which justified the taking of his blood sample. As such, we decline to address this assignment of error and it is hereby overruled,” Judge McFarland concluded.
Judges William Harsha and Marie Hoover joined Judge McFarland in affirming the lower court’s ruling.
The case is cited State v. Roar, 2014-Ohio-5214.
Copyright © 2014 The Daily Reporter - All Rights Reserved