State v. Davis
132 Ohio St. 3d 25
Ohio2012Background
- Davis threatened his ex-wife after a deputy sheriff was injured in a pursuit involving Davis, before any charges were filed.
- Davis was indicted on felonious assault, two tampering-with-evidence counts, and intimidation of a witness under R.C. 2921.04(B).
- The Second District vacated the witness-intimidation conviction, citing lack of an ongoing criminal action or proceeding at the time of the threat.
- The Supreme Court reaffirmed that R.C. 2921.04(B) does not apply when intimidation occurs after the criminal act but before any proceedings flowing from the act in a court of justice.
- A police investigation alone is not a proceeding in a court of justice; proceedings must be formally initiated (e.g., charges filed).
- The Court affirmed the appellate decision, holding that insufficient evidence supported the witness-intimidation conviction because no proceeding existed at the time of the threat; Malone remains controlling on the need for court proceedings
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether R.C. 2921.04(B) applies when intimidation occurs after the crime but before court proceedings. | Davis: post-acting stage threats can sustain a conviction. | Davis: no proceeding yet, so not a witness under the statute. | No; proceedings must flow from the criminal act in a court of justice. |
| Whether a police investigation constitutes a proceeding flowing from the criminal act. | Investigation shows ongoing action toward charges. | Investigation alone is not a court proceeding. | Investigation alone is not a proceeding; thus not a witness under the statute. |
| Whether Malone controls the interpretation of 'criminal action or proceeding' in this case. | Malone supports application when threats occur after investigation begins. | Malone requires formal court proceedings; not present here. | Malone's standard remains sound; formal proceedings required to sustain conviction. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Malone, 121 Ohio St.3d 244 (Ohio Supreme Court 2009) (witness must be involved in a criminal action or proceeding; investigation alone not a proceeding)
