State v. Dukes
2017 Ohio 7204
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Yolanda Dukes was stopped on Jan. 2, 2015 for observed lane/marked-lane driving; trooper ordered her out, ran checks, and conducted a K-9 sniff during the stop.
- K-9 alerted; troopers searched and found ~500 oxycodone pills and ~200 hydrocodone pills in the vehicle and a MapQuest printout linking Dukes to a Portsmouth address.
- Dukes was Mirandized at the patrol post and made inculpatory statements; earlier statements during the stop and some pre-Miranda questioning were contested.
- Indictment charged two counts (oxycodone) as second-degree felonies and two counts (hydrocodone) as third-degree felonies; State later conceded hydrocodone is Schedule II (not III).
- Dukes moved to suppress (stop, canine sniff, search, statements); trial court denied suppression except for some pre-Miranda statements; jury convicted on all counts; trial court merged and imposed consecutive prison terms.
- Dukes moved for new trial alleging juror misconduct (jurors looked up definitions on phones); trial court held hearings, found misconduct but no prejudice, and denied the motion. Dukes appealed; appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Dukes) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lawfulness of traffic stop | Stop supported by observed lane/marked-lane violations | Stop was unlawful /racial profiling; lack of probable cause | Stop lawful: de minimis traffic violations justified stop (probable cause/ reasonable articulable suspicion). |
| Canine sniff & duration of detention | K-9 sniff occurred during ongoing stop, with handler present; sniff did not unlawfully prolong stop; alert supplied probable cause | Sniff unlawfully extended stop; K-9 unreliable/handler cued dog; dog not trained on pills | Sniff lawful: handler was on scene, sniff occurred before stop concluded; handler testimony on training sufficed; alert gave probable cause for search. |
| Admissibility of statements (Miranda) | Post-Miranda statements at patrol post were voluntary and admissible; limited pre-Miranda statements suppressed | All statements (and fruits) should be suppressed due to custodial interrogation before warnings | Mixed: statements made during ordinary traffic stop and voluntary comments admissible; statements elicited in custody before Miranda properly suppressed; post-Miranda statements admissible (no taint under Elstad). |
| Indictment defects / sentencing/ allied offenses | Error in stating hydrocodone as Schedule III was clerical; defendant not prejudiced and actually benefited (lesser degree) | Indictment defective (wrong schedule/subsections); convictions/ sentences invalid; allied-offenses/merger required | Error in drug schedule in indictment did not prejudice defendant; convictions stand; oxycodone and hydrocodone convictions need not merge (different drugs/different offenses); no plain error or ineffective assistance shown. |
| Jury misconduct (cell-phone lookup) | Misconduct occurred but jurors unanimously testified they did not rely on outside information | Misconduct deprived Dukes of fair trial, requiring new trial | Court found misconduct but no prejudice after individual juror inquiry; denial of new trial affirmed. |
| Sentencing (consecutive terms) | Trial court made required statutory findings; sentence within statutory range | Sentence excessive/abusive; defendant had no priors and mitigating circumstances | Consecutive sentences supported by record and statutory findings; not contrary to law. |
Key Cases Cited
- Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806 (pretextual traffic stops lawful when officer has probable cause) (1996)
- Rodriguez v. United States, 575 U.S. 348 (dog sniff cannot extend an otherwise-completed stop absent reasonable suspicion) (2015)
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (custodial interrogation rules/miranda warnings) (1966)
- Oregon v. Elstad, 470 U.S. 298 (post-warning statements not automatically tainted by earlier unwarned voluntary statements) (1985)
- Berghuis v. Thompkins, 560 U.S. 370 (an implied waiver of Miranda rights may be shown by uncoerced statements) (2010)
- Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420 (routine traffic stops not custodial for Miranda purposes) (1984)
- State v. Jackson, 134 Ohio St.3d 184 (indictment must give notice of elements; rules on indictment defects) (2012)
- State v. Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d 209 (trial court must make statutory findings for consecutive sentences; reasons need not be stated) (2014)
- State v. Robinette, 80 Ohio St.3d 234 (continuing detention beyond stop requires articulable suspicion) (1997)