State v. Fussell, 2011 Ohio 4950

Fussell was indicted in March 2010 on three counts of felonious assault (R.C. 2903.11(A)(2)) with Counts 4–6; Counts 4 and 6 involved a peace officer and a non-officer respectively, while Counts 5–6 pertained to others including a minor.
The matter proceeded with Fussell’s case tried to a jury; Rashean Fussell was tried separately to the bench, and the events centered on Fussell allegedly throwing objects from a second‑floor porch during a dispute over license plates.
Defense did not timely provide a witness list; on trial day the court limited defense witnesses and later excluded all but one due to discovery sanctions for failure to disclose, prompting controversy over the right to present a defense.
Officers testified Fussell threw metal pipes, plastic pipes, and a microwave oven from the porch; the microwave landed near the officers, and Fussell was the only person on the porch when it landed.
Fussell was convicted on Count 4 (felonious assault with a peace officer) and Count 6 (felonious assault against Rosalind Heard), but acquitted on Count 5; she received a three-year sentence on Count 4 and a two-year sentence on Count 6, to be served concurrently, plus mandatory five years post-release control.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the discovery sanction excluding most defense witnesses was an abuse of discretion	Fussell; sanction violated Sixth Amendment right to present a defense	Fussell; discretion allowed but excessive sanction foreclosed defense	Yes; sanction abused; convictions vacated and remanded for new trial.
Whether the trial court's refusal to allow certain defense witnesses affected sufficiency/weight of the evidence	State; evidence sufficient for felonious assault under statute	Fussell; exclusion of witnesses undermined defense and could affect outcome	addressed but moot due to reversal on other grounds.
Whether a competency hearing was required under R.C. 2945.37	State; no explicit deficiency shown	Fussell; competency issues may exist	Not necessary to decide due to primary reversal on discovery issue.

Papadelis v. Lakewood, 32 Ohio St.3d 1 (Ohio 1987) (discovery sanctions must be tailored to minimize prejudice and preserve right to defense)
Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14 (U.S. Supreme Court 1967) (right to compulsory process and to present witnesses is fundamental)
State v. Simmons, 2008-Ohio-682 (8th Dist.) (review of discovery sanctions for abuse of discretion in Ohio)
State v. Parson, 453 N.E.2d 84 (Ohio 1983) (standard for discovery violations and permissible sanctions)
State v. Leonard, 104 Ohio St.3d 54 (2004) (sufficiency standard in appellate review: rational trier could find elements proven)
State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (1991) (standard for reviewing circumstantial evidence and sufficiency)
Amburgey v. State, 86 Ohio App.3d 635 (Ohio 1993) (Sixth Amendment right to present a defense implicated by discovery sanctions)