State v. Guzman
2021 Ohio 2168
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2021Background
- On October 21, 2020, Michael A. Guzman was charged with one count of violating a consent agreement in violation of R.C. 2919.27(A) based on alleged harassment on October 3, 2020.
- Guzman and the alleged victim had executed a consent agreement on August 20, 2020; attorney Kurt A. Dauterman represented Guzman in that matter and in the present prosecution.
- The State moved to disqualify Dauterman, arguing he was a necessary witness because only he could verify whether Guzman had been served with the consent agreement.
- The trial court, relying on State v. Smith, concluded the prosecution needed proof of service and disqualified Dauterman as having an unavoidable conflict.
- On appeal the Third District reversed, holding the trial court failed to consider R.C. 2919.27(D), which provides alternatives to proving formal service (e.g., that the defendant was shown the order or was informed by an official), and remanded for reconsideration under that statute.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court properly disqualified defense counsel as a necessary witness under Prof.Cond.R. 3.7 | State: Under State v. Smith, prosecution must prove defendant was served with the order, and Dauterman is the only witness who can attest to service, so disqualification is required | Guzman: Counsel's testimony is inadmissible/unnecessary; disqualification is drastic and conflicts with confidentiality and advocacy; alternatives exist | Reversed: Trial court erred by not considering R.C. 2919.27(D)’s alternatives to proving service; remand to evaluate necessity of counsel’s testimony under that statute |
| Whether prosecution is precluded from proceeding because it failed to serve the consent agreement | State argued prosecution can proceed only if service shown | Guzman argued failure to serve precludes prosecution | Not decided on appeal; appellate court found this issue premature/moot and declined to address it |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Smith, 989 N.E.2d 972 (Ohio 2013) (holding that to sustain conviction for violation of a protection order the State must establish the defendant was served with the order)
- State v. Ponce, 977 N.E.2d 1062 (Ohio App.) (framework for disqualification under Prof.Cond.R. 3.7: testimony must be admissible and necessary)
- State v. Johnson, 968 N.E.2d 541 (Ohio App.) (party must prove opposing counsel is a necessary witness; mere intention to call counsel is insufficient)