State v. Dixon
2016 Ohio 7438
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Defendant Krystal M. Dixon was charged in Fairfield Municipal Court with resisting arrest (misdemeanor) and disorderly conduct (misdemeanor) arising from a loud, profane dispute at the Fairfield Aquatic Center and a subsequent altercation with responding officers.
- The city relied on a surveillance video (State's Exhibit 1) of the incident; Dixon later referenced a cellphone video she claimed showed her innocence.
- Dixon filed a motion to suppress and a motion to dismiss arguing the arrest lacked reasonable suspicion and probable cause; the trial court held a hearing and denied both motions.
- Dixon pleaded guilty to disorderly conduct and no contest to resisting arrest; the court imposed jail time (partly suspended), probation, fines, and anger-management.
- On appeal Dixon raised five assignments of error challenging the suppression/dismissal rulings, alleging judicial bias, and disputing what evidence the trial court considered.
- The appellate record lacked transcripts of the trial-court proceedings; Dixon also submitted the cellphone video to the appellate court after briefing/oral argument.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred in denying Dixon's motion to suppress for lack of reasonable suspicion/probable cause | The State maintained the surveillance video and hearing established reasonable suspicion and probable cause for the arrest | Dixon argued the arrest was unlawful because officers lacked reasonable suspicion/probable cause | Denied: appellate court affirmed the trial court's denial and, because Dixon did not provide transcripts, presumed the regularity of the trial-court proceedings |
| Whether the trial court erred in denying Dixon's motion to dismiss the charges | The State argued the evidence supported continuing the prosecution | Dixon argued dismissal was required due to lack of probable cause and other defects | Denied: same reasoning as above; dismissal was not warranted on the record before the appellate court |
| Whether the trial court improperly ignored Dixon's cellphone video evidence | The State relied on the admitted surveillance video; trial court considered that evidence | Dixon said the cellphone video proved she committed no offense and that the court engaged in a "bait and switch" by relying only on State's video | Denied: appellate court could not consider the cellphone video because it was not part of the trial-court record and new matter cannot be added on appeal |
| Whether the trial judge's alleged bias required reversal or transfer | The State treated the judge's rulings as regular and proper | Dixon alleged judicial misconduct, bias and asked the appellate court to disqualify or forward the matter to the Supreme Court | Denied: appellate court lacked jurisdiction to initiate disqualification proceedings and noted the statutory procedure for municipal-judge disqualification must be followed; absence of transcripts further prevented review |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Maxwell, 139 Ohio St.3d 12 (Ohio 2014) (appellate courts may not add matter to the record that was not part of the trial-court proceedings)
- State v. Ishmail, 54 Ohio St.2d 402 (Ohio 1978) (appellate courts cannot decide appeals based on matter not in the trial record)
- Beer v. Griffith, 54 Ohio St.2d 440 (Ohio 1978) (disqualification proceedings are not initiated in the court of appeals)
- Andreyko v. Cincinnati, 153 Ohio App.3d 108 (Ohio Ct. App. 2003) (issues raised first at oral argument and not assigned in the brief are waived)