State v. Greathouse
2017 Ohio 6870
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- In 2000 A.D., a nine-year-old foster child, accused David Greathouse of sexual abuse; police investigated but the State did not file charges then.
- In 2013 M.S., then 13, disclosed prolonged sexual abuse by Greathouse; investigation led detectives to revisit the 2000 A.D. matter.
- A secret grand jury returned a multi-count indictment (seven rape counts, sexual battery, gross sexual imposition counts); one count later dismissed; Greathouse pleaded not guilty.
- On the first day of trial Greathouse sought dismissal/severance of Count One (the 2000 A.D. rape charge); the court denied relief and later denied a pretrial severance motion as well.
- Defense discovered, shortly before trial, a 2000 doctor’s prescription in Greathouse’s deceased mother’s effects indicating no physical evidence of genital abuse; the prosecution did not have or disclose that document until trial.
- Jury convicted Greathouse on all counts; on appeal the Ninth District affirmed, rejecting claims of prejudicial pre-indictment delay, due-process violation for failure to preserve/exhibit evidence, and erroneous denial of severance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Greathouse) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pre‑indictment delay for 2000 charge | No due-process violation; appellant forfeited the issue by not raising it below | 13‑year delay prejudiced defense: witness memory faded, key witnesses dead/missing | Forfeited on appeal; no plain‑error shown, assignment overruled |
| Suppression/disclosure of potentially exculpatory medical note | Prosecutors did not know of the prescription; no bad‑faith destruction or suppression by state | Failure to disclose a 2000 prescription showing no physical genital injury violated due process | No due‑process violation: evidence existed in police file/defense found original; no bad faith shown; assignment overruled |
| Motion to sever (2000 count from later counts) | Joinder was permissible under Crim.R. 8/14; State could have used other‑acts or evidence was simple and direct | Joinder was prejudicial; jury would convict on the basis of similar allegations without separate trials | Defendant forfeited Crim.R. 14 renewal at close of evidence and did not argue plain error; court declined sua sponte plain‑error analysis; denial affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Barnes, 94 Ohio St.3d 21 (2002) (plain‑error standard under Crim.R. 52(B))
- State v. Long, 53 Ohio St.2d 91 (syllabus on plain error caution)
- Arizona v. Youngblood, 488 U.S. 51 (1988) (bad‑faith requirement for failure to preserve potentially useful evidence)
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (suppression of material exculpatory evidence violates due process)
- State v. Geeslin, 116 Ohio St.3d 252 (2007) (distinguishing materially exculpatory evidence from potentially useful evidence)
- State v. Schaim, 65 Ohio St.3d 51 (1992) (standards for severance and prejudice under Crim.R. 14)
- State v. Lott, 51 Ohio St.3d 160 (1990) (State can overcome joinder claim by showing evidence of each crime is simple and direct)
- State v. McKelton, 148 Ohio St.3d 261 (2016) (joinder/other‑acts framework)
- Hoskins v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 6 Ohio St.3d 272 (bad faith requires conscious wrongdoing or intent to mislead)