State v. Arnett, 2018 Ohio 4227

Background

Arnett, a jail inmate, was reindicted for two counts of harassment by an inmate and one count of assault on a corrections officer based on a November 7, 2016 jail incident; officers testified he lunged, elbowed Officer Kerrigan, and spat at officers.
The State produced jail camera video in discovery, but the preserved recording admitted at trial showed only the immediate aftermath; the portion capturing the alleged assault was unavailable and no explanation was placed on the record.
Arnett testified he did not assault or spit on officers, though his written statement admitted his elbow “rubbed across the face” of an officer.
The jury convicted Arnett on all counts; he received concurrent 12-month sentences with two served consecutively for a total of 24 months.
On appeal Arnett argued ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to move to compel, suppress, or dismiss based on the State’s failure to produce/preserve the potentially exculpatory video; he also urged shifting the burden to the State to prove the lost video was not materially exculpatory.
The court reviewed due-process standards governing destroyed evidence (materially exculpatory vs. potentially useful and bad faith), found no record support that the missing footage was materially exculpatory or was lost in bad faith, and affirmed the conviction.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial counsel was ineffective for not moving to compel/suppress/dismiss due to missing jail video	State: counsel’s conduct did not fall below objective standard; no record of bad faith or material exculpability	Arnett: counsel should have forced the State to explain/make record about missing footage; failure prejudiced defense	Court: No ineffective assistance—no objective unreasonableness shown and no reasonable probability of a different result
Whether the State violated due process by failing to preserve potentially exculpatory video	State: no evidence missing footage was materially exculpatory or destroyed in bad faith	Arnett: missing footage likely would have exculpated him; burden should shift to State to prove otherwise	Court: Due-process claim fails—defendant bears burden to prove material exculpability or bad faith; record lacks such proof
Whether the burden should be shifted to State to prove destroyed evidence was not exculpatory	State: current Ohio/US Supreme Court precedent requires defendant to prove material exculpability/bad faith	Arnett: fairness requires placing burden on State when State cannot explain loss	Held: Court declines to shift burden—binding precedent prohibits altering allocation of burden
Whether the claim may be resolved on direct appeal without extra-record proof	State: resolution appropriate on record; no evidence outside record supports material exculpability or bad faith	Arnett: trial record inadequate because counsel didn’t develop explanation; needed evidentiary hearing	Held: Not appropriate to resolve in defendant’s favor on direct appeal—would require proof outside record (affidavits/hearing)

Key Cases Cited

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective assistance standard)
Bradley v. State, 42 Ohio St.3d 136 (Ohio ineffective-assistance standard application)
California v. Trombetta, 467 U.S. 479 (test for materially exculpatory evidence vs. potentially useful evidence)
State v. Powell, 132 Ohio St.3d 233 (application of Trombetta framework in Ohio)
State v. McClain, 60 N.E.3d 783 (Ohio appellate treatment of missing video and burden allocation)
State v. Madrigal, 87 Ohio St.3d 378 (inappropriate to resolve certain ineffective-assistance claims on direct appeal without evidence outside record)
State v. Keith, 79 Ohio St.3d 514 (supporting holding that some claims require post-conviction development)
State v. Scott, 63 Ohio App.3d 304 (same)