State v. Burch
2017 Ohio 8945
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Dennis A. Burch was indicted on four counts of gross sexual imposition involving a minor and pleaded not guilty.
- The state filed a Crim.R. 16(D) certification of nondisclosure for the minor victim’s video interviews, citing several permissible grounds but without detailed, case-specific factual support.
- Burch moved for transcripts of recorded interviews of material witnesses, including the minor victim, alleging the transcripts were essential to his defense and that he was indigent.
- The trial court granted Burch’s motion and ordered the prosecution to provide a complete written transcript of the victim’s video-recorded statements, observing the prosecution had provided only a partial unofficial transcript and had not detailed its nondisclosure reasons.
- The state appealed, arguing the trial court erred by ordering disclosure without first holding the mandatory Crim.R. 16(F) in camera hearing to review the prosecutor’s certification of nondisclosure.
- The appellate court reversed and remanded, holding the trial court was required to conduct the Crim.R. 16(F) hearing before ordering disclosure.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by ordering disclosure of the minor victim’s transcript without a Crim.R.16(F) in camera hearing | State: The prosecution properly filed a Crim.R.16(D) certification and the court must hold a Crim.R.16(F) hearing before ordering disclosure | Burch: The court could order production because prosecution supplied only an unofficial partial transcript and failed to detail nondisclosure reasons | Reversed: The trial court erred; it was required to conduct a Crim.R.16(F) in camera hearing to review the certification before ordering disclosure |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. McKelton, 148 Ohio St.3d 261 (2016) (Crim.R.16(F) requires in camera review of prosecutor’s nondisclosure certification)
- Birath v. Birath, 53 Ohio App.3d 31 (1988) (standard on abuse of discretion review)
- State v. Ferranto, 112 Ohio St. 667 (1925) (definition and discussion of abuse of discretion)
- Ivancic v. Enos, 978 N.E.2d 927 (2012) (discussion of appellate review standards and abuse-of-discretion analysis)