State v. Gard
2014 Ohio 531
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- Gard’s two-month-old son suffered a near-fatal incident; Gard was interviewed by Dayton police two days later.
- An audiovisual recording of the first interview and a second interview were admitted at a suppression hearing; the last ten minutes of the first recording were unavailable.
- Gard moved to suppress all statements made to police on Miranda grounds; the hearing had no live testimony, only recordings.
- Gard pled no contest to Child Endangering while the suppression motion remained pending; the State agreed not to pursue homicide charges if later evidence emerged.
- The trial court accepted the plea, sentenced Gard to 90 days in jail, ordered assessments and treatments, imposed random urine testing, and barred contact with two individuals.
- Gard appealed, challenging the trial court’s handling of the suppression motion and the sufficiency of the sentence; the court of appeals sua sponte considered preservation and mootness principles.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the trial court err by accepting a no-contest plea before ruling on the suppression motion? | Gard contends the motion to suppress should have been decided before plea. | Gard argues ruling was unnecessary since no evidence would be heard after plea. | No error; moot because plea made evidence moot. |
| Were Gard’s suppression issues preserved for appellate review? | Suppression ruling was pending and preserved under Crim.R. 12(I). | Unruled motion cannot create preservable error. | Preservation rules applied; issues deemed preserved only to the extent allowed by Crim.R. 12(I). (Holding: generally moot due to plea.) |
| Is the suppression issue mooted by Gard’s no-contest plea? | If suppression was decided adversely, it could affect guilt. | Plea defeats need for suppression evidence; issues moot. | Yes; the suppression issue became moot and not reviewable. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Mendell, 191 Ohio App.3d 325 (2010-Ohio-6107) (pretrial motion to suppress error preserved on appeal when no-contest plea given)
- State v. Hebdon, 2013-Ohio-1729 (12th Dist. Butler 2013) (no preservation presumed when trial proceeds without ruling on motion to suppress)