Cleveland v. Townsend
2013 Ohio 5421
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Townsend was accused in Cleveland Municipal Court of failure to comply and resisting arrest stemming from a June 2, 2012 airport incident.
- Officer Zubek directed Townsend to not leave her vehicle unattended and to park in the garage; Townsend allegedly refused and left the van unattended, prompting citations and an arrest attempt.
- Townsend refused to provide her license during the stop, and a struggle ensued when officers attempted to arrest her after she reentered the minivan.
- Townsend was convicted by jury of both charges and sentenced to fines and jail terms, with most jail terms suspended.
- Townsend timely appealed raising three assignments of error: vindictive prosecution, jury instruction error, and failure to preserve evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vindictive prosecution preserved and considered? | Townsend argues vindictive prosecution violated due process. | Townsend contends city acted vindictively after her earlier not-guilty result. | No plain error; issue not preserved and timeline not indicative of vindictiveness. |
| Plain error in jury instruction on failure to comply? | Townsend claims instruction allowed conviction based on a non-charged basis. | Townsend asserts ambiguity; jury verdict tracked the charged conduct. | No plain error; instructions aligned with the charging document and evidence. |
| Duty to preserve evidence violated due process? | Townsend asserts airport video was destroyed in bad faith and exculpatory. | City acted without bad faith; video potentially useful but not exculpatory. | No due-process violation; video not proven to be materially exculpatory; no bad faith proven. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Geeslin, 116 Ohio St.3d 252 ( Ohio 2007) (materially exculpatory evidence requirement; Trombetta standard)
- California v. Trombetta, 467 U.S. 479 (U.S. 1984) (exculpatory evidence must be readily available; not all potentially useful evidence)
- Arizona v. Youngblood, 488 U.S. 51 (U.S. 1988) (distinguishes materially exculpatory vs. potentially useful evidence)
- State v. Durham, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 92681, 2010-Ohio-1416 ( Ohio 2010) (erased video treated as potentially useful; requires bad faith for due process violation)
- State v. Miller, 161 Ohio App.3d 145 ( 2005) (bad faith requirement for destruction of potentially useful evidence)
- State v. Ross, 2d Dist. Greene No. 2012 CA 16, 2012-Ohio-4977 ( Ohio 2012) (Crim.R. 16 discovery rights; due process implications)
- State v. Petkovic, 2012-Ohio-4050 ( Ohio 2012) (pretrial preservation and evidentiary issues; limits on appellate review)
- State v. Slagle, 65 Ohio St.3d 597, 604, 605 N.E.2d 916 (1992) ( Ohio 1992) (mention regarding preservation and trial error review)
- State v. Cline, 2010-Ohio-1866 ( Ohio 2008/2009) (pretrial issues and preservation rules; preservation requirements under Crim.R. 12)
- State v. Jackson, 2011-Ohio-5920 ( Ohio 2011) (unanimity concerns when multiple acts in one count; danger of nonunanimous verdict)
- State v. Durham, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 92681, 2010-Ohio-1416 ( Ohio 2010) (double jeopardy/unanimity considerations in joint charges)
- State v. Leonard, 2013-Ohio-1446 ( Ohio 2013) (plain error review standards)