State v. Fread
2013 Ohio 5206
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Defendant-appellant Tyler Fread was convicted of domestic violence in Fairfield Municipal Court under Fairfield Cod. 537.14.
- CR. is the son of Dawn Fread and Burton Roberts; each parent remarried; they share a parenting plan with equal time for CR.
- CR. stayed with CR.'s mother and Fread on April 22, 2012; Fread questioned CR. about homework/tests and CR. stayed the weekend.
- CR. returned home April 22-23; Fread allegedly accosted CR., called him a liar, grabbed his throat, pushed him onto the bed, and leaned over him.
- CR. later informed his stepmother; police were contacted and CR. gave a statement; Dr. Knight, a psychologist, evaluated CR. weeks later.
- Fread was arrested May 10, 2012 and convicted May 31, 2012; the trial court denied motions for new trial or lesser included offense.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Dr. Knight could testify as a lay witness | Fread argues Knight was an expert and required Crim.R. 16(K) report | State contends Knight testimony was lay, not expert, and no Crim.R. 16(K) report needed | Dr. Knight was properly allowed as a lay witness. |
| Whether Knight's statements to Dr. Knight were admissible as hearsay under Evid.R. 803(4) | Statements were for diagnosis/treatment and admissible | Despite lay witness status, statements were hearsay not fitting 803(4) | Admitted under Evid.R. 803(4) as diagnostic/treatment statements. |
| Whether the conviction was against the manifest weight of the evidence | C.R. testified consistently; physician and officer corroborated | Evidence conflicted; credibility issues favored Fread | Conviction not against the manifest weight; credibility and conflicts within trial court's province. |
| Whether the trial court erred by not granting new trial or lesser included offense | New trial or lesser included disorderly conduct could be appropriate | Conviction supported; no basis for lesser included offense | Trial court did not err; no new trial or lesser included offense warranted. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Gray, 2012-Ohio-4769 (12th Dist. Butler No. CA2011-09-176, 2012-Ohio-4769) (abuse of discretion standard for evidentiary rulings)
- State v. Robb, 88 Ohio St.3d 59 (2000) (standard for admitting or excluding expert evidence)
- State v. Vaughn, 106 Ohio App.3d 775 (12th Dist.1995) (admissibility of statements to psychologist for diagnosis/treatment)
- Muttart, 2007-Ohio-5267 (Ohio 2007) (factored analysis for reliability of child statements)
- Wagers, 2010-Ohio-2311 (12th Dist. Preble No. CA2009-06-018) (recognizes 803(4) applicability to statements for diagnosis/treatment)