2019 Ohio 1615
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- On Oct. 23, 2017 Mariemont police stopped Jeremy Brown; officers performed field-sobriety tests and charged him with OVI (including prior/refusal) and two failure-to-yield counts.
- Brown moved to preserve all video/audio from the stop; the State did not produce the cruiser dash-cam video and Brown moved to dismiss.
- Officer Ostendarp testified he turned on his cruiser camera during the stop but could not locate the video and forgot to request it from the evidence officer (Geraci).
- Officer Geraci found date-stamped digital files but could not access them because a department-wide video-download system had malfunctioned earlier (as early as Aug./Sept.) and prevented proper storage.
- The trial court found no bad faith by police but concluded the recording was materially exculpatory and dismissed all charges; the State appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred in dismissing charges for failure to preserve video | State: dismissal improper because video was not shown to be materially exculpatory and no bad faith | Brown: missing video was materially exculpatory and police acted (at least) negligently/badly by failing to preserve it | Reversed: Brown failed to show material exculpatory value and police did not act in bad faith; due process not violated |
| Who bears burden to prove materiality when evidence lost before a preservation request | State: burden remains with defendant because loss preceded Brown’s preservation motion | Brown: argued State should shoulder burden after moving to preserve | Court: because loss occurred before Brown’s request, burden stays with Brown |
| Standard for "materially exculpatory" evidence | State: requires apparent exculpatory value before destruction and impossibility to obtain comparable evidence | Brown: argued video would have shown exculpatory facts (field tests) | Court: applies Trombetta/Powell standard; Brown did not meet burden because no one viewed video before loss |
| Whether police acted in bad faith in failing to preserve potentially useful evidence | State: system malfunction, routine checks occurred and there was no dishonest purpose | Brown: argued officer’s failure to request video shows bad faith or breach of policy | Court: bad faith implies conscious wrongdoing or dishonest purpose; here no evidence of such, so no bad faith |
Key Cases Cited
- Arizona v. Youngblood, 488 U.S. 51 (Sup. Ct.) (failure to preserve potentially useful evidence violates due process only upon showing bad faith)
- California v. Trombetta, 467 U.S. 479 (Sup. Ct.) (evidence is materially exculpatory only if apparent value before destruction and no comparable evidence available)
- State v. Powell, 132 Ohio St.3d 233 (Ohio 2012) (Ohio application of Trombetta/Youngblood standards and burden-shifting rules)
- State v. Benson, 152 Ohio App.3d 495 (1st Dist. 2003) (procedural limits on appeals when assignments of error do not implicate particular convictions)