2011 Ohio 1746
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- Barnett reported missing items from his Washington County home in March 2009; sheriff's investigation followed.
- Deputy Travaglio investigated, determined Elliott should be questioned, and Elliott approached Travaglio voluntarily.
- Travaglio visited Elliott's trailer, photographed items, and obtained permission to take some items into custody; later, photos linked items to Barnett's home.
- During a third visit, Elliott invited Travaglio into his residence, was told he was not under arrest and could leave, and subsequently confessed to burglary in a non-coercive setting.
- Elliott gave a written statement after confessing; he was not arrested that day; a Washington County Grand Jury indicted him for burglary on July 31, 2009.
- Elliott moved to suppress the confession in May 2010; the trial court denied the motion and convicted him of burglary.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was Elliott's confession voluntary? | Elliott | Elliott | Confession voluntary; no coercive tactics found |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Hurst, 2009-Ohio-3127 (Ohio) (mixed question standard; defer to trial court on facts)
- State v. Perez, 124 Ohio St.3d 122 (2009) (coercion considerations under totality of circumstances; coercive tactics required for involuntariness)
- State v. Edwards, 49 Ohio St.2d 31 (1976) (totality of circumstances governs voluntariness of confession)
- State v. Slagle, 65 Ohio St.3d 597 (1992) (totality-of-the-circumstances standard for confessions)
- State v. Humphrey, 2010-Ohio-5950 (Ohio) (coercion requires objective coercion and overbearing will)
- United States v. Rigsby, 943 F.2d 631 (6th Cir. 1991) (coercive police activity analysis in federal context)