State v. Cavalier, 2012 Ohio 1976

Cavalier was arrested for Soliciting and Loitering to Solicit after police surveilled her in Dayton in the early morning hours.
A search of Cavalier incident to arrest revealed a syringe and a syringe-related item; a rolled paper towel was found in the vehicle.
A lab report on cocaine from the syringe was disclosed just before trial and the trial court continued the trial date.
Cavalier sought to exclude the lab report under Crim. R. 16(K); the court denied exclusion but continued the trial.
Cavalier moved to admit evidence that Officer Orick choked and threatened to kill her to show bias; the court excluded this evidence.
The jury convicted Cavalier of Tampering with Evidence and Possession of a Drug Abuse Instrument; the court imposed a single sentence for both offenses.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether there was probable cause to arrest Cavalier	Cavalier argues lack of probable cause for arrest	Cavalier contends no probable cause existed for Loitering to Solicit and Solicitation	Probable cause existed for arrest; search was valid as incident to arrest
Whether the lab report could be admitted despite 16(K) disclosure	State asserts continued trial complied with 16(K)	Cavalier argues 16(K) required exclusion for late disclosure	Laboratory report disclosure was timely after continuance; no abuse of discretion in continuing trial
Whether the evidence supports Tampering with Evidence conviction	State asserts denial and concealment occurred pre-arrest	Cavalier contends no pre-arrest knowledge of investigation; false denial not proven	Insufficient evidence to prove Cavalier knew an official investigation was likely pre-arrest; Tampering conviction reversed
Whether exclusion of bias evidence regarding Officer Orick was harmless	Bias evidence could affect jury perception of Orick	Exclusion denied defendant relevant bias evidence	Exclusion was harmless in light of disposition on Tampering; bias evidence deemed harmless error
Whether the trial court erred in sentencing due to non-distinction of offenses	Cavalier asserts improper sentencing for two offenses		Remand for sentencing on Possession of a Drug Abuse Instrument; Tampering conviction reversed

Beck v. State of Ohio, 379 U.S. 89 (U.S. 1964) (probable cause standard for arrest; Fourth Amendment)
State v. Sowry, 155 Ohio App.3d 742 (2d Dist. 2004) (limits on compelled self-incrimination concerns in Tampering with Evidence)
State v. Schmitz, 2005-Ohio-6617 (10th Dist. 2005) (constructive notice of investigation not controlling for intent to Tamper)
State v. Cockroft, 2005-Ohio-748 (10th Dist. 2005) (precedent on tampering scope)
State v. Jones, 2003-Ohio-5994 (10th Dist. 2003) (precedent on investigative anticipation and tampering)
State v. Schmitz, 2005-Ohio-6617 (10th Dist. 2005) (see above (duplicate entry included for clarity))
Delaware v. Van Arsdell, 475 U.S. 673 (U.S. 1986) (Confrontation clause considerations in witness bias)
Lombardi, Inc. v. Smithfield, 11 A.3d 1180 (Del. 1989) (example placeholder not used due to lack of Ohio authority)