Bedford v. McLeod
2011 Ohio 3380
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- McLeod was charged with OVI under R.C. 4511.19(A)(1)(a) and (d) after a 2008 traffic stop in Bedford.
- McLeod waived speedy trial at arraignment, agreeing the court could set hearing or trial at its earliest convenience.
- McLeod moved to suppress evidence and statements on December 4, 2008; suppression hearing held December 29, 2008.
- The trial court did not rule on the suppression motion until January 29, 2010, more than a year later.
- After trial, McLeod was convicted on the OVI counts, with the related ordinance charge acquitted; sentence imposed and stayed pending appeal.
- Upon review, this court discovered no recording of the suppression hearing because the court destroys recordings after 18 months.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the suppression denial proper? | McLeod asserts no valid basis for suppression; officer lacked reasonable suspicion/causation. | City contends officer had probable cause to stop for a traffic violation and to arrest for intoxication. | Sustained; suppression denial reviewed as insufficient record due to missing findings. |
| Did the trial court’s delay in ruling on suppression create an inadequate record on appeal? | McLeod argues delay destroyed suppression hearing recording, preventing proper review. | City contends no fatal error given existing record, and records can be reviewed without full findings. | Sustained; record destruction due to delay invalidates adequate appellate review. |
| Did the delay violate McLeod’s speedy-trial rights under the waiver? | Waiver acknowledged; court failed to bring case to trial timely, violating the waiver. | City argues no speedy-trial violation given waiver and court’s acknowledgment of delay was inadvertent. | Vacated; convictions reversed and remanded for further proceedings. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Benson, 29 Ohio App.3d 321 (Ohio App.3d 1985) (speedy-trial waiver context and reversal when delay occurs)
- State v. Brown, 64 Ohio St.3d 476 (Ohio 1992) (importance of timely, supported findings in speedy-trial context)
- State v. Ogletree, 2006-Ohio-448 (Ohio App.3d 2006) (Crim.R.12(F) findings when issues of fact arise)
- State v. Martin, 2007-Ohio-6062 (Ohio App.3d 2007) (found insufficient findings can be reviewed when record supports ruling)
- Bedford v. Clark, 2011-Ohio-941 (Ohio App. 2011) (presumption of regularity; need for complete record to review Crim.R. 12(F))