State v. Bussle
2017 Ohio 4045
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Defendant Quillie Bussle, Jr. hosted an October 12, 2013 party where alcohol and drugs were used; two minor females (ages 15 and 17) and adult Bridget David were present.
- David testified Bussle asked her to bring the girls, gave drugs, directed poses, and used her phone to take five topless photographs showing minors engaging in sexual activity (e.g., girls licking David’s nipples).
- David pled guilty to related offenses after her phone was seized; she testified for the state at Bussle’s bench trial. The photos were recovered from David’s phone; none were found on phones seized from Bussle’s residence.
- Bussle subpoenaed Danielle Knight, who indicated through counsel she would assert the Fifth Amendment; the trial court quashed the subpoena but allowed the officer to relate Knight’s statement that she may have taken the photos.
- After a bench trial Bussle was convicted of two counts of pandering sexually oriented matter involving a minor (R.C. 2907.322) and three counts of illegal use of a minor in nudity-oriented material (R.C. 2907.323), sentenced to five consecutive three-year terms (15 years), and designated a Tier II sex offender.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did quashing Knight’s subpoena violate Bussle’s compulsory process rights? | State: Court properly quashed because Knight would invoke Fifth Amendment; her counsel so advised. | Bussle: Quashing denied his right to compulsory process and to call a defense witness. | Court: No abuse of discretion; quash permissible where witness will assert privilege; officer permitted to testify to Knight’s statement. |
| Was evidence sufficient to support pandering and illegal-use convictions (Crim.R. 29)? | State: Photos show minors engaging in sexual activity/nudity and testimony established Bussle created/directed/photographed them with knowledge and intent for sexual gratification. | Bussle: Photos were on David’s phone; no direct proof Bussle intended sexual arousal; alternative perpetrators exist. | Court: Sufficient evidence; sexual contact (licking nipples) meets statutory definitions and circumstantial evidence can show sexual purpose. |
| Are convictions against the manifest weight of the evidence? | State: Credible testimony from David and one minor supports verdict; court may disbelieve Knight’s contrary statement. | Bussle: Intoxication of witnesses, photos only on David’s phone, David received plea deal, Knight’s exculpatory statement undercuts verdict. | Court: Not against manifest weight; trial court (as factfinder) reasonably credited state witnesses over inconsistencies and Knight’s statement. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Kirk, 72 Ohio St.3d 564 (1995) (trial court may exclude a defense witness who will merely invoke the Fifth Amendment)
- State v. Ferranto, 112 Ohio St. 667 (1925) (definition and standard for abuse of discretion)
- Columbus v. Cooper, 49 Ohio St.3d 42 (1990) (addresses Fifth Amendment assertions by witnesses)
- State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (1997) (standard for reversing a conviction as against the manifest weight of the evidence)
- State v. DeHass, 10 Ohio St.2d 230 (1967) (trial court/jury are best positioned to assess witness credibility)
- Petro v. North Coast Villas Ltd., 136 Ohio App.3d 93 (2000) (appellate review of subpoena-quashing is abuse-of-discretion)