State v. Griffeth
2011 Ohio 4426
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- Griffeth was on five-year community control sanctions after a 2004 sexual battery conviction; one count yielded prison time, the other was community control.
- While under supervision, a no-contact-with Jennifer Leech condition and a no-ride-with a woman with a child condition were imposed.
- The Richland County Probation Office added Leech-related restrictions after transfer from the APA, including housing and use of a car.
- In December 2008, probation violations were alleged for contact with Leech, furnishing her a car, and the son living at Leech’s residence; a fourth violation claimed dishonesty about contact.
- An evidentiary hearing in 2010 found violations 1, 2, and 4, while the “son living with Leech” violation was dismissed; Griffeth was referred to the Community Alternative Center and continued on probation.
- Griffeth appeals on three assignments of error challenging constitutionality, sufficiency of proof, and pre-hearing disclosure rights.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Constitutionality of Leech restriction | Griffeth argues the association ban violates First Amendment rights. | Griffeth contends the term is overly broad and unrelated to rehabilitation. | The restriction is reasonably related to probation goals and not an abuse of discretion. |
| Substantial proof for probation violations | State contends there was substantial proof of violations 1, 2, and 4. | Griffeth argues the evidence does not meet substantial proof standard. | Record supports a substantial proof finding; no abuse of discretion. |
| Discovery prior to revocation hearing | Crim. R. 32.3 not providing discovery; due process satisfied. | Griffeth asserts denial of discovery prejudiced his defense. | No due process violation; revocation hearing properly conducted. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Jones, 49 Ohio St.3d 51 (1990) (probation conditions must relate to rehabilitation and public safety)
- State v. Livingston, 53 Ohio App.2d 195 (1976) (probation restrictions analyzed for reasonableness)
- United States v. Strada, 393 F. Supp. 19 (D.C. Mo. 1974) (federal authorities on probation restrictions)
- State v. Maynard, 47 Ohio App.3d 76 (1988) (limitations on probation conditions)
- United States v. Tolla, 781 F.2d 29 (2d Cir. 1986) (reasonableness of probation-related restrictions)
- Pavlich, 2011-Ohio-802 (6th Dist) (due process standard for probation revocation hearings)