State v. Bump
2013 Ohio 1006
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Defendant-appellant John Bump was indicted in the Logan County Court of Common Pleas on multiple counts of rape and gross sexual imposition relating to two victims, S.E. and L.C., with alleged abuse spanning 2005–2009 (S.E.) and 2006–2009 (L.C.).
- S.E. was seven to eleven years old during the period of abuse; L.C. was five to eight; Bump resided with them and was the father figure in the home where the acts occurred; S.E. is not his biological daughter, and L.C. lived at Bump’s residence with his mother Carmen, Bump’s live-in girlfriend.
- In August 2011, Bump moved to suppress evidence from a warrantless April 21, 2010 search of his residence and to sever the trials; he sought exclusion of computer data and pornographic material found during the search.
- A suppression hearing addressed Carmen’s authority to consent to the search, her living arrangement, and the police’s reasonable belief of her authority; the trial court denied suppression on September 29, 2011.
- Before trial, two in limine motions to exclude certain out-of-court statements and computer-content evidence were denied; video interviews of the victims were excluded, and the trial proceeded with multiple witnesses, including police, investigators, a therapist, and the victims.
- The jury ultimately found Bump guilty on several counts related to S.E. and L.C.; he was sentenced to 19 years to life; the sentencing entry included costs and attorney fees that the court had not addressed in open court, prompting appellate review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether suppression of the residence search was proper | State argues Carmen had common authority to consent. | Bump contends Carmen lacked authority and search was unconstitutional. | Suppression denied; consent reasonable; admission harmless. |
| Whether severance was properly denied | Joinder allowed under Crim.R. 8; evidence admissible to show common scheme. | Severance preferable to avoid prejudice. | Severance denial affirmed; evidence would be admissible under R.C. 2945.59 and Evid.R. 404(B) in severed trials. |
| Admission of out-of-court statements by S.E. and L.C. | Statements fit excited utterance and other-acts rationale for admissibility. | Certain statements were improper hearsay and should be excluded. | Carmen’s testimony regarding S.E.’s statements not proper excited utterance; harmless error; L.C. statements properly admitted; Bumgarner’s testimony as to both children not reversible error. |
| Admission of prior statements of S.E. to police | Prior statements rebut fabrication and support witness credibility. | Statements were inadmissible under Evid.R. 801(D)(1)(b) as improper prior consistent statements. | Trial court erred in admitting S.E.’s written/recorded statements, but error was harmless. |
| Confrontation rights and expert/credibility testimony | Detective Salyer’s credibility assessment and Linnell’s testimony supported, not violated Confrontation. | Credibility opinion by Detective Salyer and reliance on UCLA scale could violate Confrontation. | Admission of Salyer’s credibility opinion and Linnell’s use of UCLA-scale data found harmless; no Confrontation violation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (1980) (home-entry warrantless searches presumptively unreasonable)
- United States v. Matlock, 415 U.S. 164 (1974) (common authority for third-party consent)
- Georgia v. Randolph, 547 U.S. 103 (2006) (shared authority; must respect objection to search)
- Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (2009) (testimonial reports require confrontation)
- Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 131 S. Ct. 2705 (2011) (surrogate testimony violates Confrontation Clause)
- Williams v. Illinois, 132 S. Ct. 2231 (2012) (experts may rely on related reports to explain reasons; not per se Confrontation violation)
- State v. Gutierrez, 2011-Ohio-3126 (Ohio 3d Dist.) (excited utterance liberal application in child-sex cases)