State v. Campbell
2014 Ohio 1329
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- In April 2010 Michael C. Campbell testified at his speeding trial that his car was equipped with a laser jamming device that would prevent a trooper’s laser gun from measuring his speed. After that testimony he was charged with obstructing official business under R.C. 2921.31(A).
- The complaint, sworn by State Trooper Joe Sankoe, alleged Campbell acted with purpose to prevent, obstruct or delay a public official in his duties on or about April 23, 2010 in Harrisville Township, Medina County, Ohio.
- At trial the complaint was amended to attempted obstruction; a jury found Campbell guilty and the trial court entered a sentence (later procedural issues required resentencing entries).
- Campbell’s early appeals were dismissed for defects in the sentencing entry and incomplete appellate record (missing reporter’s transcript). After resentencing and additional filings, Campbell prosecuted this appeal pro se raising seven assignments of error.
- The panel reviewed: (1) whether the charging complaint was defective and deprived the court of jurisdiction; (2) sufficiency/manifest-weight and several trial rulings (transcript not in record); (3) adequacy of the State’s bill of particulars; and (4) denial of a pretrial motion to dismiss.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Campbell) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Was the complaint defective so as to deprive the court of subject-matter jurisdiction? | Complaint tracked the statute; contained essential elements and put defendant on notice. | Complaint omitted specific act, officer identity, and precise date/time — rendering it defective and stripping jurisdiction. | Complaint was sufficient; tracked R.C. 2921.31(A) and gave required notice. Assignment VI overruled. |
| 2. Are challenges to sufficiency, manifest weight, admission of videotaped testimony, and amendment of the charge reviewable absent a reporter’s transcript? | Record (including DVDs) adequately preserves issues. | Appellant lacks a written transcript required by App.R. 9(B)(6) and App.R. 10(A); absent transcript, appellate review is precluded and trial-court regularity is presumed. | Appellate review barred for these issues due to missing written transcript; assignments I–IV overruled. |
| 3. Was the State’s bill of particulars inadequate? | State provided date/time, location and described overt act: use of an electronic device attached to vehicle to hamper laser speed measurement. | State failed to explain how device hampered the officer and failed to cite a statute making such devices illegal; thus the bill was inadequate. | Bill of particulars met Crim.R. 7(E) and Sellards requirement for dates/times and sufficiently identified conduct; assignment V overruled. |
| 4. Should Campbell’s pretrial motion to dismiss (filed Nov. 4, 2010) have been granted because the State lacked evidence? | Denial was proper because summary disposition on the merits pretrial (like summary judgment) is not permitted; evidentiary sufficiency is for Crim.R. 29 after trial. | Trooper’s prior testimony showed he recorded Campbell’s speed, so the State could not prove obstruction; complaint should be dismissed. | Motion to dismiss properly denied because it raised evidentiary sufficiency issues that must be addressed via Crim.R. 29 after evidence is closed; assignment VII overruled. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Landrum, 53 Ohio St.3d 107 (Ohio 1990) (charging instrument sufficient when it tracks statute)
- Akron v. Holland Oil Co., 146 Ohio App.3d 298 (Ohio Ct. App. 2001) (purpose of charging instrument is to inform accused of offense)
- State v. Sellards, 17 Ohio St.3d 169 (Ohio 1985) (prosecutor must supply specific dates/times in response to bill of particulars when that information exists)
- State v. Varner, 81 Ohio App.3d 85 (Ohio Ct. App. 1992) (pretrial dismissal on sufficiency grounds akin to summary judgment is improper; sufficiency challenges preserved for Crim.R. 29)