State v. Boles
2011 Ohio 3720
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- This is an appeal from a rape of a child conviction following multiple prior proceedings and reversals.
- Boles was convicted in 2008 of Rape of a Child Under 13; a force specification had been part of an earlier verdict but was removed.
- The rape kit evidence was destroyed in 2004; Boles moved to dismiss alleging failure to preserve potentially exculpatory material.
- The trial court denied the dismissal; on appeal, the Fifth and Eleventh Assignments were addressed in re-opening the direct appeal.
- The court held the kit destruction did not violate due process and that the kit was not materially exculpatory, but was potentially useful and not destroyed in bad faith.
- The court sustained the Third Assignment to correct the termination entry to conform to the verdict and remanded for a proper judgment entry.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the State’s destruction of the rape kit violated due process. | Boles argues bad faith and failure to preserve material evidence. | Boles asserts the kit was materially exculpatory or, at minimum, potentially useful. | No due-process violation; kit not materially exculpatory, and no bad-faith destruction. |
| Whether Bodyke affects Boles’s Tier III designation. | Bodyke invalidates certain classifications; status should revert. | Classification was set under pre-Bodyke framework but governed by pre-existing law. | Bodyke does not require reversing Boles’s Tier III designation; classification aligns with pre-Bodyke framework. |
| Whether the erroneous termination entry required a new trial or sentencing, or could be corrected nunc pro tunc. | Termination entry misstated conviction as Forcible Rape. | clerical error; nunc pro tunc correction permissible. | Error sustained; remanded to file a judgment entry conforming to the verdict. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Bodyke, 126 Ohio St.3d 266 (2010-Ohio-2424) (severs unconstitutional sex-offender classification provisions; separation of powers issue)
- State v. Geeslin, 116 Ohio St.3d 252 (2007-Ohio-5239) (due process not violated absent bad faith destruction of evidence, when exculpatory value is not apparent)
- California v. Trombetta, 467 U.S. 479 (1984) (exculpatory value and testing feasibility determine material exculpatory evidence)
- Arizona v. Youngblood, 488 U.S. 51 (1988) (due process and preservation of potentially useful evidence require bad faith showing)
- State ex rel. DeWine v. Burge, 128 Ohio St.3d 236 (2011-Ohio-235) (clerical corrections may be made via nunc pro tunc when warranted by Crim.R. 36 and related rules)
- State ex rel. Womack v. Marsh, 128 Ohio St.3d 303 (2011-Ohio-229) (clerical errors in sentencing entries corrected by nunc pro tunc)
- State v. Miller, 127 Ohio St.3d 407 (2010-Ohio-5705) (nunc pro tunc or corrected journal entries when record reflects actual decision)