State v. Gaines
2017 Ohio 8906
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- At ~5:10 a.m. officers responded to a 911 caller reporting two people arguing/possibly fighting in an alley behind a house; the caller provided name/address but could not see the parties.
- Officers found Jerrod Gaines standing by a parked car and his wife seated in the driver’s seat; officers did not observe fighting, hear threats, nor speak with the wife.
- Officer Peterson called Gaines over; Gaines walked toward his fenced yard, tossed his keys into bushes, became irate, put hands in his pockets, and questioned the stop.
- Peterson ordered Gaines to remove his hands and to turn around; the officer handcuffed Gaines for safety without expressly stating a reason; Gaines resisted, a struggle ensued, backup used a Taser, and Gaines was arrested for obstructing official business and resisting arrest.
- Gaines moved to dismiss, arguing officers lacked reasonable articulable suspicion and probable cause and thus he had a privilege to disobey; the trial court granted dismissal/suppression, finding the stop lawful but handcuffing excessive.
- The State appealed; the appellate court reviewed de novo and reversed, holding the motion to dismiss was improperly used to raise issues that should be decided at trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a motion to dismiss may resolve whether officers had reasonable suspicion/probable cause and thus whether defendant had privilege to resist | State: charge valid; issues of suspicion/probable cause are factual and for trial | Gaines: officers lacked reasonable suspicion/probable cause, so detention/arrest unlawful and he had privilege to resist; dismissal proper | Motion to dismiss was improper because challenges to the sufficiency of probable cause/suspicion are matters for trial; reversal of dismissal and remand |
| Whether officers lawfully stopped/detained Gaines (related to obstructing charge) | State: stop justified by report of possible domestic dispute; conduct thereafter could constitute obstruction | Gaines: stop/detention unlawful; handcuffing excessive; thus obstructing charge fails | Appellate court declined to decide merits; treated these as trial issues and remanded |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Fields, 84 N.E.3d 193 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017) (de novo review of trial court decision on motion to dismiss)
- State v. Palmer, 964 N.E.2d 406 (Ohio 2012) (Crim.R. 12 and timing of pretrial motions)
- State v. Patterson, 577 N.E.2d 1165 (Ohio Ct. App. 1989) (motion to dismiss tests sufficiency of indictment, not the merits of evidence)