2017 Ohio 406
Ohio Ct. App.2017Background
- Victim Je.B., then 15, disclosed in Feb 2015 that her 17-year-old brother Ju.B. had repeatedly raped her since age seven; WCJFS and sheriff investigated and removed her from the home.
- A pediatric sexual-abuse physician found hymenal trauma and diagnosed sexual abuse; victim later added details and alleged parental inaction/abuse.
- Ju.B. was charged in juvenile court with five counts of rape; Count 1 was dismissed and he was adjudicated delinquent on Counts 2–5 and committed to DYS with consecutive sentences on three counts.
- Before trial, Ju.B. moved to suppress statements from a Feb 11, 2015 sheriff’s interview because the office’s video recording of the interview was overwritten and unavailable; the trial court denied the motion.
- On appeal, the Sixth District found the sheriff’s deputy had declined an immediate copy and failed to preserve the recording despite department policy and ease of preservation, concluding the failure amounted to bad faith and required suppression and a new trial on Counts 2–5.
- The court affirmed the exclusion of a Skype message log offered by Ju.B. (hearsay/authentication issues) and declined to decide other assignments of error in light of the new-trial ruling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether suppression/dismissal required for failure to preserve interview video | Ju.B.: deputy knew a recording existed, declined an offered copy, failed to request a copy after charges; destruction rose to bad faith and required suppression/new trial | State: erasure was not dishonest or in bad faith; evidence was only potentially useful | Held: Failure to safeguard the recording amounted to bad faith; trial court erred denying suppression; new trial ordered on Counts 2–5 |
| Whether statements were involuntary for lack of Miranda/ coercion | Ju.B.: interview statements involuntary/coerced (argued below) | State: no involuntariness | Not decided on appeal (mooted by suppression ruling) |
| Whether court erred by not appointing guardian ad litem | Ju.B.: parents’ interests conflicted with his (victim sibling, parental accusations) requiring GAL appointment | State: parents supported Ju.B.; issue not raised below (plain error) | Not decided on appeal; remand permits juvenile court to address GAL issue |
| Whether Skype chat log should have been admitted | Ju.B.: log showed motive to fabricate and was authenticated by device forensic analysis and victim’s device use | State: log unauthenticated, hearsay, and used to prove truth of messages | Held: Court did not abuse discretion excluding log (hearsay/authentication problems); exclusion affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Burnside, 797 N.E.2d 71 (Ohio 2003) (standard for appellate review of mixed questions of law and fact on suppression)
- State v. Geeslin, 878 N.E.2d 1 (Ohio 2007) (distinguishes materially exculpatory vs. potentially useful evidence; bad-faith preservation rule)
- State v. Durnwald, 837 N.E.2d 1234 (Ohio App. 2005) (failure to preserve recorded evidence can constitute bad faith where preservation was easy and policy required it)
- State v. Mills, 582 N.E.2d 972 (Ohio 1991) (trial court’s role as factfinder on suppression; credibility determinations)