129 N.E.3d 961
Oh. Ct. App. 7th Dist. Belmont2019Background
- Rodney Curtis, a St. Clairsville urologist, was investigated after a former employee, Ashley Padgett, admitted writing prescriptions and agreed to be a confidential informant. Two recorded controlled buys (Apr 26–27, 2016) and a subsequent search (Apr 28, 2017) found Adderall and Suboxone.
- Curtis was indicted on three trafficking counts and two possession counts; he stipulated at trial he gave Padgett the drugs and pursued entrapment as an affirmative defense.
- Curtis moved to suppress evidence obtained by search warrant, arguing the affidavit lacked probable cause and omitted material facts about Padgett’s relationship and law enforcement’s direction to her.
- During trial, defense learned of an undisclosed recording of Padgett’s mother speaking with a Pharmacy Board investigator and moved for a continuance or mistrial alleging a Brady violation; the motions were denied.
- Curtis requested a jury instruction on entrapment; the court denied it. Curtis was convicted on all counts and sentenced to community control with an 18‑month prison sanction if violated. He appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Curtis) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Motion to suppress — probable cause for warrant | Affidavit based on two verified controlled buys provided probable cause; affidavit need not include every background fact | Affidavit omitted material facts (gap in relationship, law enforcement coaching informant) undermining probable cause | Warrant upheld: controlled buys provided sufficient probable cause; omissions were immaterial |
| 2. Failure to disclose recording — Brady / request for continuance or mistrial | Recording was administrative and irrelevant; non‑disclosure not material to outcome | Undisclosed interview with informant’s mother was material and could support entrapment defense | Denial of continuance/mistrial affirmed: undisclosed material not shown and evidence of predisposition undermined Brady claim |
| 3. Denial of entrapment jury instruction | No entitlement because evidence showed Curtis’s predisposition and defense failed to meet burden to prove entrapment | Law enforcement induced Padgett to exploit relationship; instruction was warranted | Denial affirmed: record showed prior drug conduct, knowledge, access, and no sufficient evidence of lack of predisposition |
| 4. Sentencing advisement about community control violation | Trial court complied by specifying an 18‑month prison term as the sanction for violation | Statutory language requires specific advisement of consequences; omission of verbatim statutory phrasing alleged | Affirmed: court gave the required specific prison term, satisfying R.C. 2929.19(B)(4) requirements |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (U.S. 1984) (exclusionary rule and good‑faith exception context)
- Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (U.S. 1983) (totality‑of‑the‑circumstances test for probable cause in warrant affidavits)
- United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338 (U.S. 1974) (scope and purpose of the exclusionary rule)
- State v. George, 45 Ohio St.3d 325 (Ohio 1989) (appellate review limits—substantial basis for magistrate’s probable cause determination)
- State v. Doran, 5 Ohio St.3d 187 (Ohio 1983) (Ohio adopts subjective entrapment test and lists predisposition factors)
- State v. Brooks, 103 Ohio St.3d 134 (Ohio 2004) (requirements for notifying defendant of specific prison term upon community control violation)