State v. Burnette
2011 Ohio 6400
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- Defendant-appellant Kelly Burnette was a front-seat passenger in a vehicle stopped by a state trooper in Negley, Ohio, at 2:45 a.m. on December 14, 2008; driver shown to be intoxicated and arrested for OVI; Burnette appeared intoxicated and had a beer can protruding from his pocket.
- The trooper conducted a pat-down search of Burnette for weapons and removed a lidless mint tin from his pocket.
- Inside the tin was a red straw and white powder; a deeper search of the pocket revealed a folded paper containing 0.42 grams of cocaine.
- Burnette was charged with possession of cocaine under R.C. 2925.11(A), a fifth-degree felony, and moved to suppress evidence obtained from the stop and search.
- Burnette pled no contest to the charge; the trial court denied the suppression motion, and Burnette was sentenced to eight months with a six-month license suspension.
- On appeal, the Seventh District reversed the suppression denial and remanded for suppression of the evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rule 39(B)(2) affects trial jurisdiction | Burnette | Burnette | Rule 39(B)(2) not jurisdictional; court retained jurisdiction |
| Whether the initial stop had reasonable suspicion | State failed to prove reasonable suspicion at suppression hearing | Burnette argued stop lacked reasonable suspicion; suppression motion invoked state’s burden | Motion to suppress sufficient to invoke the State’s burden; reverse and remand for suppression of evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Singer, 50 Ohio St.2d 103 (Ohio 1977) (speedy-trial rule not affected by non-mandatory supervision rules)
- Maumee v. Weisner, 87 Ohio St.3d 295 (Ohio 1999) (reasonable-suspicion standard; precedents for stop validity)
- Brendlin v. California, 551 U.S. 249 (U.S. 2007) (passenger-privacy and stop analysis: passenger feels seized during stop)
- Xenia v. Wallace, 37 Ohio St.3d 216 (Ohio 1988) (Crim.R. 47 and specificity requirements for suppression motions)
- Shindler, 70 Ohio St.3d 54 (Ohio 1994) (defendant must state grounds with particularity to place state on notice)