State v. Baker, 2021 Ohio 1004

Kyle M. Baker was indicted on multiple drug and weapons counts arising from conduct between Feb 12 and Apr 4, 2019; indictment included several trafficking counts and possession and weapons-while-under-disability counts.
Police obtained search warrants for Baker’s vehicle (Feb 14, 2019) and residence (Apr 4, 2019); Baker does not challenge probable cause for those warrants on appeal.
Baker moved to suppress a confession and later filed supplemental motions asserting an oral promise by a detective to obtain consideration for Baker’s cooperation (an alleged ‘‘adhesion’’ plea/contract) and that performance of the promise was impossible.
Baker also sought pretrial access to a confidential informant (CI); the court ordered an interview but the CI was not produced and Baker moved to dismiss the indictment for that reason.
Baker entered no-contest pleas to the indictment, was found guilty, and was sentenced to an indefinite prison term (minimum 6 years, maximum 21 years); he appealed the denials of the suppression motion and the dismissal motion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Baker)	Held
Whether the court erred denying Baker’s motion to suppress his confession based on an alleged oral promise/adhesion contract and impossibility of performance	Confession admissible; officer’s testimony credible; officers cannot bind State by plea bargains; Baker failed to cooperate so no consideration was due	Detective promised consideration for cooperation; performance became impossible and confession should be suppressed/dismissed under due process/Fifth Amendment	Denied. Trial court credited detective, found no enforceable plea bargain, Baker failed to perform, so suppression was not warranted
Whether the indictment should be dismissed because the CI was not produced for pretrial interview, allegedly violating the Confrontation Clause	Motion premature and improperly seeks pretrial dismissal; Confrontation Clause is not a pretrial discovery device; dismissal is not the appropriate remedy	Failure to produce CI for pretrial interview deprived Baker of confrontation and a fair trial, warranting dismissal	Denied. Issue was functionally evidentiary (motion in limine); Baker’s no-contest plea and lack of trial objection waived the claim; dismissal premature and unwarranted

State v. Burnside, 100 Ohio St.3d 152 (Ohio 2003) (standard of appellate review for suppression rulings: mixed questions of law and fact)
State v. Mills, 62 Ohio St.3d 357 (Ohio 1992) (trial court as factfinder and credibility determinations in suppression hearings)
State v. Mathews, 8 Ohio App.3d 145 (10th Dist. 1982) (police officers cannot make enforceable plea bargains)
State v. Wickline, 50 Ohio St.3d 114 (Ohio 1990) (Confrontation Clause is not a pretrial discovery device)
State v. Engle, 74 Ohio St.3d 525 (Ohio 1996) (pleas/no-contest pleas generally forfeit right to appeal pretrial evidentiary rulings)
Fortner v. Thomas, 22 Ohio St.2d 13 (Ohio 1970) (courts should not issue premature advisory rulings on questions dependent on trial evidence)