State v. Dennis, 2018 Ohio 2495

On June 22, 2013, Akron police located a reported-stolen vehicle at a residence; officers went to the house and were admitted after a brief exchange with the homeowner.
Officers found Brian Dennis in a back bedroom; a loaded .45 handgun was found on the bed, cocaine was found on Dennis, and heroin and a scale were found in the vehicle.
Dennis was indicted for possession of heroin, possession of cocaine, having weapons while under disability, and receiving stolen property; a jury convicted him of all but receiving stolen property and the court imposed an aggregate three-year sentence.
Dennis moved to suppress evidence from the home; the trial court initially entered a brief denial, this court remanded for factual findings, and the trial court thereafter issued detailed findings and again denied suppression.
On remand Dennis appealed, arguing (1) he had standing because he was an overnight guest (challenging denial of suppression) and (2) the trial court erred by permitting an officer to use an incident report to refresh recollection and read portions into the record.
The court affirmed: it found Dennis lacked a legitimate expectation of privacy (no standing), and any evidentiary error in permitting use of the report was harmless.

Issue	Dennis' Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether Dennis had standing/legitimate expectation of privacy in the home (motion to suppress)	Dennis argued he was an overnight guest and therefore had a reasonable expectation of privacy to challenge the entry and seizure	State argued Dennis was not an overnight guest and lacked standing to contest the entry	Court held Dennis lacked standing; trial court's credibility findings (Dennis not an overnight guest) were supported by competent, credible evidence and affirmed denial of suppression
Whether the trial court erred in allowing an officer to use an incident report to refresh recollection/read details into the record (Evid.R. 803(5) and 612)	Dennis argued the officer improperly read from the incident report and that admission violated the recorded-recollection rule	State argued the report was used to refresh memory under Evid.R. 612 and any use was proper; additionally, any error was harmless because the same facts were proved elsewhere	Court held some uses violated Evid.R. 612/803(5) in form but any error was harmless because the same details were admitted elsewhere and Dennis was not prejudiced

State v. Burnside, 100 Ohio St.3d 152 (Ohio 2003) (standard of review for suppression hearing; trial court as finder of fact)
Minnesota v. Olson, 495 U.S. 91 (U.S. 1990) (overnight guests may have Fourth Amendment privacy rights)
Minnesota v. Carter, 525 U.S. 83 (U.S. 1998) (presence by consent does not automatically confer privacy expectation)
State v. Mills, 62 Ohio St.3d 357 (Ohio 1991) (trial court credibility role in suppression hearings)
State v. Williams, 73 Ohio St.3d 153 (Ohio 1995) (standing as legitimate expectation of privacy)
State v. Ballew, 76 Ohio St.3d 244 (Ohio 1996) (limitations on reading prior statements to jury; refreshing recollection rules)
Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (Ohio 1983) (abuse of discretion standard)