State v. Franchi
2016 Ohio 1195
Ohio Ct. App.2016Background
- On August 18, 2014, Akron Officer Natalie Tassone stopped Ritzi Franchi for vehicle code violations and approached his car.
- Officer Tassone testified Franchi consented to a vehicle search; Franchi testified he did not and said she never asked.
- The cruiser’s audio-video hard drive had recorded the stop but was overwritten before the suppression hearing; the recording was requested in discovery prior to erasure.
- At the suppression hearing the trial court found Franchi had consented and denied suppression based on testimony alone.
- After learning the recording was lost, the trial court concluded the State failed to preserve potentially exculpatory evidence, credited Franchi’s version, and dismissed the indictment for violation of due process.
- The State appealed, arguing the missing recording could not have been materially exculpatory and the trial court erred in dismissing the indictment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the erased cruiser recording was "materially exculpatory" such that its loss violated due process | Franchi: recording might have shown he did not consent; loss deprived him of potentially exculpatory evidence | State: recording only related to the stop/consent, not to guilt/innocence, so it was not materially exculpatory | Court of Appeals: recording could not have contained materially exculpatory evidence; trial court erred in presuming it did |
| Whether the State must show absence of materially exculpatory content or Franchi must show bad faith when evidence is lost | Franchi: trial court placed burden on State to prove tape lacked exculpatory material, justifying dismissal | State: where missing evidence is not clearly material to guilt/innocence, defendant must show bad faith by the State | Court of Appeals: defendant bears burden to show bad faith; trial court wrongly shifted burden to State; no bad faith found |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Johnston, 39 Ohio St.3d 48 (Ohio 1988) (withholding materially exculpatory evidence violates due process)
- State v. Geeslin, 116 Ohio St.3d 252 (Ohio 2007) (when lost evidence is not clearly material to guilt/innocence, defendant must show State bad faith)
- State v. Benton, 136 Ohio App.3d 801 (6th Dist. 2000) (tape loss may be materially exculpatory when it goes to impairment of proof underlying criminal charge)
- State v. Benson, 152 Ohio App.3d 495 (1st Dist. 2003) (similar: lost recording relevant to DUI stop could be materially exculpatory)