State v. Clark, 2018 Ohio 4759

Appellant Marcus Clark, recently sentenced for menacing by stalking, was transported from court to jail; Deputy Jason Stambaugh overheard Clark make two statements: one off the elevator and one in the tunnel—allegedly threats toward the victim.
Stambaugh reported the statements; Clark was indicted for third-degree felony retaliation (R.C. 2921.05(B)).
Defense requested courthouse/tunnel video; the primary basement/tunnel camera footage was overwritten pursuant to a 21-day retention policy before prosecutors were aware of the incident. A second-system video (no audio) showed the second alleged statement; a recreated video of the first statement was later produced.
Clark moved to dismiss for due-process violation based on destroyed video; the trial court denied the motion, concluding the lost footage was potentially useful but not materially exculpatory and no bad faith was shown.
At a bench trial, the court found Stambaugh’s testimony credible and convicted Clark of retaliation; Clark appealed, arguing (1) due-process violation for failure to preserve evidence and (2) conviction was against the manifest weight of the evidence.

Issue	Appellee's Argument (State)	Appellant's Argument (Clark)	Held
Whether destroyed courtroom/tunnel video violated due process	Video was not materially exculpatory; its loss was negligent, not in bad faith	Video would have been materially exculpatory by disproving agitation/arm movements and undermining Stambaugh’s credibility	Denied—video was only potentially useful, no bad faith shown; no due-process violation
Whether conviction was against manifest weight of the evidence	Stambaugh’s immediate report and consistent testimony make his account credible; threats were verbal, not reliant on arm movement evidence	Lack of video corroboration and destroyed footage undermines credibility; evidence weighs against conviction	Denied—credibility of Stambaugh supported verdict; not an exceptional case requiring reversal

State v. Powell, 132 Ohio St.3d 233 (2012) (distinguishes materially exculpatory evidence from potentially useful evidence and frames due-process test)
California v. Trombetta, 467 U.S. 479 (1984) (evidence is constitutionally material if exculpatory value was apparent before destruction and cannot be replicated)
State v. Geeslin, 116 Ohio St.3d 252 (2007) (when evidence is only potentially useful, defendant must show state bad faith to establish a due-process violation)
State v. Lang, 129 Ohio St.3d 512 (2011) (standard for manifest-weight review)
State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (1997) (discusses manifest-weight standard and the narrow use of a new trial)