State v. Clayton, 2017 Ohio 8538

Around 1:30 a.m., Deputy Grossenbaugh stopped a Chrysler Pacifica on I-71 after observing lane violations and other suspicious indicators (slowing after passing cruiser).
Officers observed eight similarly sized, tightly wrapped bundles on the folded rear seats and other indicia (multiple cellphones, air freshener, nervous occupants); occupants gave inconsistent stories about their travel and ownership of the vehicle.
A canine unit did not alert; officers nonetheless sought a search warrant after Detective Schweitzer viewed the bundles and suspected marijuana; the warrant was executed and the bundles proved to be bales of marijuana.
Appellant (Clayton) and co-defendant Raphael were indicted for trafficking and possession of marijuana and permitting drug abuse; both moved to suppress and the trial court granted suppression for evidence seized from the vehicle.
The state appealed; this court reversed the suppression (finding probable cause/autombile exception) and remanded. The Ohio Supreme Court dismissed the discretionary appeal for failure to prosecute (appellant's prior appellate counsel), and subsequent motions to reopen were denied.
On remand the defendants were tried jointly in a bench trial; Clayton was convicted of possession and permitting drug abuse and now appeals raising two assignments of error.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial court was required to reopen the suppressed-evidence motion before convicting after procedural history	State: law-of-the-case controls; this court previously reversed suppression and that ruling stood after supreme court denied relief—trial court need not sua sponte reopen suppression	Clayton: due to ineffective assistance by prior appellate counsel and intervening Rodriguez decision, the trial court should have reopened suppression under Rodriguez	Court: Overruled Clayton — law-of-the-case applied; no duty to reopen; conviction permitted
Whether admission of Raphael’s out-of-court statements violated Clayton’s Confrontation/Bruton rights at a joint bench trial	State: statements were non-hearsay (offered to show officers’ state of mind and investigative steps) or, if hearsay, not Bruton-type because not facially or significantly incriminating; bench trial reduces prejudice	Clayton: Raphael’s statements inculpated him and admission violated Sixth Amendment confrontation rights (Bruton)	Court: Overruled Clayton — statements were non-hearsay or not Bruton-revealing; even if close, bench trial presumed to consider evidence properly; no plain error

Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 (U.S. 1968) (admission of a non-testifying co-defendant’s confession that incriminates defendant violates Confrontation Clause in joint jury trial)
Richardson v. Marsh, 481 U.S. 200 (U.S. 1987) (redacted confessions that eliminate any reference to defendant and existence of a co-defendant do not violate Confrontation Clause when limiting instruction given)
Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (U.S. 2004) (Confrontation Clause bars admission of testimonial hearsay unless witness unavailable and defendant had prior opportunity to cross-examine)
Rodriguez v. United States, 575 U.S. 348 (U.S. 2015) (traffic stop prolonged beyond mission of stop without reasonable suspicion is unlawful)
State v. Moritz, 63 Ohio St.2d 150 (Ohio 1980) (Ohio application of Bruton to statements that significantly incriminate co-defendant)
In re Watson, 47 Ohio St.3d 86 (Ohio 1989) (bench trial context: redacted nontestifying co-defendant confessions do not violate confrontation rights as in Richardson)