State v. Fliger, 2020 Ohio 753

Jason E. Fliger was arrested on October 5, 2018 and indicted on November 9, 2018 for two counts of failure to comply/elude (one third-degree felony, one misdemeanor) and one count of receiving stolen property. He remained in custody pretrial.
A March 27, 2019 journal entry continued his March 25 trial to June 10, 2019 because an older, more serious case took precedence; the court tolled speedy-trial time for the continuance.
On June 6, 2019 Fliger moved to dismiss for violation of the speedy-trial statute (R.C. 2945.71), arguing the triple-count provision should make his pretrial custody exceed the 270-day felony limit.
The State proved (and the trial court found) Fliger was being held on multiple out-of-county/municipal charges, tolling events (including 52 days of discovery), and that one-to-one counting applied; the court denied the motion and trial proceeded.
At trial the State presented body-cam footage of Fliger’s arrest to rebut his testimony (bearing on knowledge/intent and elements of the offenses); the court reviewed the video outside the jury’s presence and gave a limiting instruction before admitting it.
The jury acquitted Fliger of receiving stolen property but convicted him of fleeing/eluding; the court merged the counts and sentenced him to 30 months. Fliger appealed, raising speedy-trial and Evid.R. 404(B) challenges. The appellate court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the court erred by denying dismissal for speedy-trial violation	State: Time was tolled by discovery and a reasonable continuance due to an older, more serious case; Fliger was held on other jurisdictions’ charges so one-to-one counting applied	Fliger: Triple-count under R.C. 2945.71(E) makes his pretrial custody (159 days × 3 = 477 days) exceed the 270-day limit; March 27 entry insufficient to justify continuance	Affirmed. Triple-count not available where defendant was held on other jurisdictions’ charges; continuance was reasonable and record shows tolling events, so time did not exceed 270 days
Whether admission of body-cam footage violated Evid.R. 404(B)	State: Footage rebuts Fliger’s testimony and bears on knowledge, intent, and elements of fleeing/eluding and receiving stolen property	Fliger: Footage impermissibly introduces evidence of other crimes/wrongs under Evid.R. 404(B)	Affirmed. Trial court did not abuse discretion: footage admissible for rebuttal/intent/knowledge, court reviewed video outside jury, and gave a limiting instruction

State v. Ladd, 56 Ohio St.2d 197, 383 N.E.2d 579 (1978) (Sixth Amendment speedy-trial right applies to states)
State v. Pachay, 64 Ohio St.2d 218, 416 N.E.2d 589 (1980) (Ohio statutory speedy-trial provisions must be strictly enforced)
State v. MacDonald, 48 Ohio St.2d 66, 357 N.E.2d 1115 (1976) (limitations on application of triple-count when defendant held on other jurisdictions’ charges)
State v. Brown, 64 Ohio St.3d 476, 597 N.E.2d 97 (1992) (discusses speedy-trial computation and custody issues)
State v. Martin, 56 Ohio St.2d 289, 384 N.E.2d 239 (1978) (continuance tolls must be reasonable in purpose and length)
State v. Lee, 48 Ohio St.2d 208, 357 N.E.2d 1095 (1976) (reasonableness standard for continuances)
State v. Ramey, 132 Ohio St.3d 309, 971 N.E.2d 937 (2012) (trial court should journal reasons for sua sponte continuance but appellate affirmance possible when record otherwise demonstrates reasonableness)
State v. Mincy, 2 Ohio St.3d 6, 441 N.E.2d 571 (1982) (sua sponte continuance should be entered by journal entry prior to expiration)
State v. Myers, 97 Ohio St.3d 335, 780 N.E.2d 176 (2002) (record may affirmatively demonstrate necessity and reasonableness of continuance)
State v. Parsley, 82 Ohio App.3d 567, 612 N.E.2d 813 (1993) (evidence supporting that defendant was held on other charges can preclude triple-count benefit)
Pang v. Minch, 53 Ohio St.3d 186, 559 N.E.2d 1313 (1990) (presumption that jury follows limiting instructions)