State v. Arrington
2017 Ohio 2578
Ohio Ct. App.2017Background
- Renisha Arrington was arrested Feb. 24, 2016 on felony drug charges and remained jailed; she was later indicted (Apr. 14, 2016) on multiple first-degree felonies in Erie County. Trial counsel entered appearance Apr. 15, 2016.
- Defense served discovery requests (Apr. 28, 2016; supplement May 10, 2016) seeking witness statements, videos, co-defendant histories, and the identity of a confidential informant.
- The State produced large supplemental discovery loads (including many DVDs) shortly before the May 23, 2016 trial date and filed its confidential-informant nondisclosure certification on May 31, 2016.
- Defense moved to continue the May 23 trial date (May 20) and later moved to compel (May 31) because discovery arrived too late for effective review.
- Defense filed a speedy-trial dismissal (June 7, 2016). The trial court found the State’s late disclosure made the continuance and motion-to-compel delays chargeable to the State, calculated the tolling, and dismissed the indictment for violation of Arrington’s statutory speedy-trial rights. The appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether delays from defendant’s continuance and discovery motions tolled the speedy-trial clock | State: defendant-initiated motions toll time; filing a motion is a defensive act that reasonably delays trial | Arrington: motions were necessitated by the State’s late and incomplete discovery, so resulting delay should be charged to the State | Court: delay attributable to continuance and motion-to-compel was chargeable to the State because State’s untimely discovery made the requests necessary; dismissal affirmed |
| Whether trial court abused discretion by imposing a discovery sanction that effectively led to dismissal | State: court should apply least severe sanction; refusal to toll was improper and caused dismissal | Arrington: State’s discovery failures justified charging resulting delay to State and denying tolling | Court: no abuse of discretion; judge reasonably concluded State’s repeated late disclosures warranted charging the delay to State |
| Proper calculation of speedy-trial time and tolling events | State: re-calculation shows no violation; tolling for defense motions valid | Arrington: calculation must exclude days caused by State’s discovery failures | Court: trial court’s accounting and allocation of days to State was supported by record; speedy-trial violation established |
| Standard of review for determination of tolling and discovery sanctions | State: factual findings supported by record; legal tolling rules applied | Arrington: trial court’s factual findings accepted; law permits refusal to toll where State’s conduct made delay necessary | Court: applied de novo review to legal questions and clearly-erroneous standard to facts; affirmed trial court decision |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Adams, 43 Ohio St.3d 67 (speedy-trial constitutional protection)
- State v. Singer, 50 Ohio St.2d 103 (strict construction of tolling provisions against the State)
- State v. Brown, 98 Ohio St.3d 121 (defendant motions for discovery toll speedy-trial time)
- State v. Parson, 6 Ohio St.3d 442 (factors for discovery-sanction selection)
- State v. Wamsley, 71 Ohio App.3d 607 (continuance granted after State’s discovery failure may be charged to State if delay was willful and prejudicial)
- State v. Lautenslager, 112 Ohio App.3d 108 (arrest day not counted in speedy-trial computation)
- State v. Geraldo, 13 Ohio App.3d 27 (burden shifts to State after defendant shows speedy-trial period expired)