State v. Allenbaugh
2021 Ohio 2177
Ohio Ct. App.2021Background
- Mark H. Allenbaugh was convicted after a bench trial of speeding in a school zone and fined $50. He appealed.
- This court (2020-Ohio-68) reversed and remanded because the municipal court held a Daubert hearing on the TruSpeed laser’s reliability without Allenbaugh present, depriving him of a fair hearing; the court found allowing the State’s late-named expert was not an abuse of discretion.
- Retrial was scheduled; Allenbaugh filed an Omnibus Motion to Dismiss arguing double jeopardy barred retrial because the prior conviction should be treated as an acquittal (insufficient evidence).
- The municipal court denied the motion; Allenbaugh appealed the denial and this court stayed the retrial during appeal.
- The Eleventh District reviewed whether the prior reversal constituted an acquittal (insufficiency) or merely trial error that permits retrial, and affirmed the denial of the motion to dismiss.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Allenbaugh) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether double jeopardy bars retrial after the prior reversal | Retrial permitted because reversal was for trial error (Daubert hearing held in defendant’s absence), not insufficiency | Retrial barred because prior conviction depended on improperly admitted laser evidence, so appellate reversal means insufficient evidence/acquittal | Retrial allowed: reversal was for trial error, not insufficiency; double jeopardy does not bar retrial |
| Whether appellate exclusion of evidence converts a conviction into an acquittal for double jeopardy | Evidence admitted at trial was sufficient; Lockhart/Brewer allow retrial when reversal is for evidentiary error | Only properly admitted evidence should count; excluding laser reading would leave insufficient evidence | Followed Lockhart and Brewer: double jeopardy bars retrial only when reversal is for insufficiency; evidentiary-error reversals do not bar retrial |
| Whether failure to produce an expert report or late naming of an expert required acquittal | Prior panel already held admitting the late expert was not an abuse; unresolved Rule 16(K)/Boaston questions are not dispositive of double jeopardy now | Boaston/Crim. R. 16(K) violation means evidence insufficient and retrial should be barred | Municipal court has not ruled on those issues; they do not change the double jeopardy analysis here |
| Whether defendant’s absence from the Daubert hearing equates to an acquittal | Absence was a trial/due-process error affecting admissibility only | Absence invalidated the Daubert foundation and thus the conviction should be treated as an acquittal | Court characterized the error as trial error (admissibility defect), not an appellate finding of insufficiency |
Key Cases Cited
- Lockhart v. Nelson, 488 U.S. 33 (U.S. 1988) (retrial barred only when appellate reversal is for evidentiary insufficiency)
- State v. Brewer, 903 N.E.2d 284 (Ohio 2009) (Ohio follows Lockhart: evidentiary-error reversals do not bar retrial if admitted evidence was sufficient)
- Girard v. Giordano, 122 N.E.3d 151 (Ohio 2018) (distinguishes insufficiency reversals from trial-error reversals for double jeopardy)
- State v. Boaston, 153 N.E.3d 44 (Ohio 2020) (addresses expert disclosure and admissibility issues under Crim. R. 16(K) and Daubert)
- Brook Park v. Rodojev, 161 N.E.3d 511 (Ohio 2020) (addresses foundation/admissibility for speed-detection device evidence)