State v. Fouts, 2016 Ohio 1104

Fouts was indicted in Washington County on kidnapping, abduction, gross sexual imposition, and attempted unlawful sexual conduct with a 15-year-old.
Fouts moved to suppress statements made to police, contending custodial interrogation and involuntariness due to deception.
A jury found him not guilty of kidnapping and abduction, but guilty of gross sexual imposition and attempted unlawful sexual conduct with a minor; he was sentenced to prison.
The trial court denied the suppression motion; the defense challenged Crim.R. 16(L) discovery sanctions for excluding one of two surprise witnesses.
The court allowed one witness (Fouts’s wife) to testify post-sanction and excluded the other (his daughter) for discovery noncompliance; the state did not interview the daughter.
Fouts appealed asserting suppression error, due process/compulsory process rights, ineffective assistance of counsel, and failure to sua sponte grant a lesser-included offense instruction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the police interview custodial and requiring Miranda warnings?	State argued no custodial interrogation occurred.	Fouts argued the interview was custodial and Miranda-warning was required.	No custodial interrogation; statements were admissible without Miranda warning.
Was the discovery sanction properly applied under Crim.R. 16(L) affecting witness testimony?	State contends sanction was appropriate to enforce discovery rules.	Fouts contends sanction violated due process/compulsory process.	Trial court did not abuse discretion; exclusion of one witness was proper and did not violate rights.
Did trial counsel provide ineffective assistance regarding discovery, closing argument, and lesser-included offenses?	State asserts no ineffective assistance given trial strategy."	Fouts claims deficient performance and prejudice.	No ineffective assistance; no prejudice shown; no entitlement to lesser-included-offense instruction.
Was the court required to give sua sponte a lesser included offense instruction on sexual imposition?	N/A	Fouts contends error for not instructing on sexual imposition.	No sua sponte instruction required given the evidence; not entitled to lesser offense instruction.

State v. Hobbs, 133 Ohio St.3d 43 (2012-Ohio-3886) (standard for reviewing suppression rulings; factual findings supported by competent evidence bind on appeal)
Oregon v. Mathiason, 429 U.S. 492 (1977) (Miranda warnings not required for non-custodial questioning)
California v. Beheler, 463 U.S. 1121 (1983) (custodial vs. noncustodial; degree of restraint matters)
State v. Biros, 78 Ohio St.3d 426 (1997) (defining custodial interrogation in Ohio law)
State v. Wiles, 59 Ohio St.3d 71 (1991) (deception as a factor in voluntariness of confession, not dispositive)