State v. Dyer
100 N.E.3d 993
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Lance Dyer was tried by jury in Dayton Municipal Court for aggravated menacing and menacing based on threats allegedly made to his ex-wife Cassandra Porter during an encounter at the maternal grandmother’s home on July 18, 2016. The jury convicted Dyer of menacing (misdemeanor 4th) and acquitted him of aggravated menacing.
- Porter testified she believed Dyer threatened to "kick [her] ass" and to return with a gun; a neighbor (Cunningham) corroborated hearing threats. Dyer and one son denied hearing any threat; Dyer denied intoxication.
- Dyer sought to introduce records (and cross-examine Porter about) several prior domestic violence protection-order complaints Porter had filed against him, many of which were dismissed or terminated—arguing they showed Porter made false allegations and were probative of bias/credibility under Evid.R. 608(B) and 616(A).
- The trial court excluded the prior-P.O. documents and prohibited reference to them unless after Porter’s testimony the court found them admissible; the court also barred a defense witness (Keisha Jackson) for untimely disclosure after denying a continuance request.
- On appeal Dyer challenged (1) exclusion of the prior-complaint evidence and limits on cross-examination; and (2) exclusion of the untimely defense witness as an excessive discovery sanction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of prior protection-order complaints under Evid.R. 608(B) to show untruthfulness | State: Prior filings/dismissals do not show falsity and extrinsic proof of specific acts is prohibited by Evid.R. 608(B) | Dyer: Prior complaints (and dismissals in Dyer’s favor) show Porter made false allegations and are clearly probative of untruthfulness | Court: No abuse of discretion in excluding the documents and limiting cross-exam; dismissals alone were not clearly probative of falsity in most instances, so exclusion under 608(B) proper |
| Admission of prior P.O. proceedings under Evid.R. 616(A) to show bias | State: Jury already knew parties were divorced and acrimonious; prior P.O. records not necessary to show bias absent proof of falsity | Dyer: Prior filings show motive/bias to fabricate and should be admissible impeachment | Court: No abuse of discretion; jury was aware of relationship and absent evidence prior allegations were false, 616(A) did not require admission |
| Exclusion of defense witness (Keisha Jackson) for untimely disclosure | State: Late notice denied meaningful opportunity to investigate; exclusion is appropriate discovery sanction | Dyer: State had 13 days’ notice and suffered no prejudice; excluding key eyewitness was unfair | Held: No abuse of discretion; court imposed a reasonable sanction and offered continuance option which Dyer declined |
| Overall sufficiency of rulings to warrant reversal | State: Court’s evidentiary/discovery rulings within discretion; any disputed evidence not clearly probative of falsity | Dyer: Evidentiary and sanction rulings denied meaningful defense and violated rights to present witnesses | Court: Affirmed—trial court acted within its discretion on both evidentiary and discovery issues |
Key Cases Cited
- Sage v. State, 31 Ohio St.3d 173 (trial court has broad evidentiary discretion)
- Darmond v. State, 135 Ohio St.3d 343 (abuse-of-discretion standard and deference on evidentiary rulings)
- Boggs v. State, 63 Ohio St.3d 418 (Evid.R. 608(B) allows, in court’s discretion, cross-examination on specific instances if clearly probative)
- Papadelis v. City of Lakewood, 32 Ohio St.3d 1 (trial court must inquire into discovery violation circumstances and impose least severe sanction consistent with discovery rules)
- Williams v. State, 61 Ohio App.3d 594 (bias of a witness is relevant to credibility and may be shown to the factfinder)