State v. Hadding
2013 Ohio 643
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Hadding was sentenced to 9 years 11 months after a jury found him guilty of four counts of pandering obscenity involving a minor.
- The offenses arose from a September 17, 2011 incident involving his daughter C.H., his girlfriend’s daughter S.M., and secretly recorded material.
- Evidence included a hidden video camera, a camcorder, a videotape, and a cell phone image depicting S.M. and related material.
- Counts One and Three charged creation of obscene material; Counts Two and Four charged possession of obscene material, all involving a minor.
- At sentencing, the trial court held the offenses were not allied offenses of similar import and did not merge, and ordered consecutive and concurrent terms to total 9 years 11 months.
- Hadding appealed, arguing the creation and possession counts should have merged as allied offenses of similar import.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether creation and possession counts are allied offenses | Hadding contends the offenses merge as similar import since one cannot create without possessing. | State argues separate animus for creation and possession means no merger. | Not allied offenses; separate animus means no merger. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Stall, 2011-Ohio-5733 (3d Dist., 2011) (framework for de novo allied offenses analysis under Johnson)
- State v. Brown, 2011-Ohio-1461 (3d Dist., 2011) (animus and single conduct under Johnson framework)
- State v. Johnson, 128 Ohio St.3d 153 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2010) (modified analysis for allied offenses under 2941.25)
- State v. Hendricks, 2009-Ohio-5556 (8th Dist., 2009) (creation and possession not merged when separate animus exists)
- State v. Eal, 2012-Ohio-1373 (10th Dist., 2012) (each image/file can constitute a separate offense)