State v. Bohanna
2017 Ohio 7003
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Defendant Daniel Bohanna lived with victim S.H.; on Nov. 16–17, 2015 she was beaten, exposed to carbon monoxide in a closed garage, and sexually assaulted; she was hospitalized and a SANE (sexual assault nurse examiner) kit was collected.
- Bohanna was arrested, his iPhone seized, and later indicted on two counts of rape (R.C. 2907.02(A)(2)), one count of kidnapping (R.C. 2905.01), and one count of felonious assault (R.C. 2903.11).
- Bohanna proceeded pro se at trial with standby counsel; he filed various pretrial motions, some denied for procedural defects; he raised suppression of iPhone evidence orally at trial day.
- At trial the SANE nurse testified about the victim's statements and injuries; other witnesses including the victim and treating ER physician also testified regarding assaults and injuries.
- Jury convicted Bohanna on all counts; he appealed raising (1) improper hearsay from SANE nurse testimony, (2) court’s failure to address a suppression motion before trial (iPhone), and (3) sufficiency/manifest-weight challenge to felonious assault conviction.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Bohanna's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of SANE nurse testimony as hearsay under Evid.R. 803(4) | Nurse documented statements made for medical diagnosis/treatment; admissible. | Nurse testimony was investigatory/testimonial and thus inadmissible hearsay. | Court: SANE statements were testimonial (not for treatment) so admission erred, but error was harmless because testimony was largely duplicative of other evidence. |
| Suppression of iPhone evidence | No timely motion to suppress; warrant for download existed; oral trial-day request was untimely. | Evidence from iPhone should be suppressed; challenged seizure/search. | Court: Denial of oral suppression request was not an abuse of discretion; issue was untimely. |
| Sufficiency/manifest weight as to felonious assault (use of board as deadly weapon) | Evidence (injuries, testimony, board used to strike victim) proved felonious assault beyond reasonable doubt. | Argues insufficiency/weight against finding of felonious assault. | Court: Evidence was sufficient and weight supported conviction; board was used as a weapon capable of causing death/serious harm. |
| (Procedural) Trial court's handling of pro se pretrial filings | Court applied Criminal Rule 49 and denied blanket leave; addressed motions on record. | Argued procedural defects and lack of pretrial rulings (e.g., suppression). | Court: No reversible error in denying untimely/misfiled motions; relevant rulings were made and preserved. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dever v. State, 64 Ohio St.3d 401 (discusses test for hearsay exception for statements made for medical diagnosis or treatment)
- Arnold v. State, 126 Ohio St.3d 290 (explains dual investigatory/medical role and limits of Evid.R. 803(4) when statements are prosecutorially investigatory)
- Muttart v. State, 116 Ohio St.3d 5 (clarifies admissibility under Evid.R. 803(4) depends on purpose of statement)
- Thompkins v. State, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (defines manifest-weight standard of review)
- Jenks v. State, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (sets sufficiency-of-the-evidence standard for appellate review)
- Shepard v. United States, 290 U.S. 96 (harmless-error principle cited for admission of duplicative testimony)