State v. Carr
2020 Ohio 42
Ohio Ct. App.2020Background
- Brandon Carr was indicted in 2017 for offenses arising from the 2016 death of Brittany Russell; after trial he was convicted of multiple counts and sentenced to life without parole plus 34 years.
- During and after trial Carr sought various post-judgment reliefs; several appeals and post-judgment matters were pending at different times in the appellate courts.
- On February 27, 2019 Carr (incarcerated) filed a R.C. 149.43(B)(8) motion in the trial court requesting Dayton Police records (chain-of-custody, evidence processing forms, emails) concerning the murder vehicle and its handling.
- The trial court denied the motion on March 27, 2019, finding Carr had not identified a pending proceeding to which the records would be material nor shown how the records were necessary to support a justiciable claim.
- The Second District reviewed for abuse of discretion and affirmed: Carr failed to show a pending proceeding where the requested documents would be material; direct appeals cannot rely on extra-record evidence; Carr’s mandamus had produced only policy (not the handling records) and was moot; no post-conviction proceeding was pending when the request was made.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Carr) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion denying the R.C.149.43(B)(8) request | Carr: records are necessary to support justiciable claims and appeals/post-conviction petitions | State: Carr did not identify a pending proceeding or show materiality; statute requires judge-findings for incarcerated persons | No abuse of discretion; denial affirmed |
| Whether Carr identified a pending proceeding to which the records would be material | Carr: had multiple pending appeals, a pending Supreme Court mandamus, and intended post-conviction matters | State: direct appeals cannot consider new extra-record evidence; mandamus was dismissed (moot) and produced only the policy; no post-conviction proceedings were pending when request filed | Carr failed to identify any proceeding where the documents would be material |
| Whether requested documents could be considered on direct appeal | Carr: policy/noncompliance might show evidence mishandling relevant to convictions | State: reviewing court cannot add matter outside the trial record on direct appeal | Records outside the trial record were not material to pending direct appeals |
| Whether the request was necessary to support a post-conviction claim | Carr: evidence handling records would support post-conviction claims | State: no post-conviction proceedings were pending when request filed; later post-conviction filings cannot be considered | No justiciable post-conviction claim existed at the time; requirement not met |
Key Cases Cited
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (1983) (abuse-of-discretion standard defined)
- AAAA Enterprises, Inc. v. River Place Community Urban Redevelopment Corp., 50 Ohio St.3d 157 (1990) (decision is unreasonable if no sound reasoning process supports it)
- State v. Ishmail, 54 Ohio St.2d 402 (1978) (appellate courts cannot consider matter outside trial record)
- State ex rel. Everhart v. McIntosh, 115 Ohio St.3d 195 (2007) (courts may take judicial notice of judicial opinions and internet-accessible public records)
- State v. Kinley, 136 Ohio App.3d 1 (1999) (post-conviction proceedings may present evidence outside the trial record)