State v. Hall
2016 Ohio 7301
Ohio Ct. App.2016Background
- In 2013 John F. Hall, a longtime Cleveland police detective, was indicted on charges arising from allegedly tipping off members of the Salti family about an FBI/USDA investigation into EBT (food-stamp) fraud at local stores.
- A CI working with a USDA agent made multiple undercover buys; one cash-for-card buy at Superior Sunoco (owned/operated by Salti) precipitated a fast move to obtain a search warrant in May 2010.
- After the CI’s card was thrown out and retrieved from the store dumpster, the agent learned an employee said someone named “Johnny” had warned the store; the agent suspected Hall because he had discussed the pending warrant with the agent the day before.
- Issa Salti and Salti Salti testified that Hall contacted Issa, identified illegal EBT activity at Superior Sunoco, said the police would be coming, and urged that “things needed to get cleaned up,” leading the Salti family to remove cards/records.
- Hall denied intending to impede an investigation, claiming he merely asked who owned the station out of curiosity and did not tell anyone to clean up evidence.
- A jury acquitted Hall of bribery and witness intimidation but convicted him of obstructing justice and tampering with evidence; the convictions and sentences were appealed and affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Hall's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence to support tampering with evidence conviction | Evidence (friendship with Salti family, Hall’s tip that police were coming, Salti/Issa testimony) shows Hall knowingly caused removal/concealment of evidence and was complicit | No proof Hall had specific intent to alter/destroy/ conceal evidence or was complicit in any tampering | Court: Evidence sufficient; jury could infer purposeful intent and complicity from circumstances; Crim.R.29 denial affirmed |
| Admissibility of prosecutor’s impeachment (specific acts) on cross-exam | Prosecutor impeached Hall with prior bad acts; trial court permitted inquiry under Evid.R.608(B) | Many prior-act questions were noncriminal and not probative of truthfulness; objectionable under Evid.R.608(B) | Court: Admission was erroneous for many acts but harmless given overwhelming prosecution case; no reversible prejudice |
| Pretrial motion in limine barring Hall from calling law-enforcement character witnesses to impeach Salti | State sought to preclude Hall from calling officers to testify about Salti’s reputation/truthfulness | Hall sought to call law-enforcement witnesses to impeach Salti’s credibility | Court: Limine properly granted — officers’ opinions derived from criminal encounters not community reputation; plus Hall could cross-examine Salti about convictions; no abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Bridgeman, 381 N.E.2d 184 (Ohio 1978) (standard for sufficiency review; acquittal not required if reasonable minds could reach different conclusions)
- State v. Apanovitch, 514 N.E.2d 394 (Ohio 1987) (Crim.R.29 standard: only grant where reasonable minds could not fail to find reasonable doubt)
- State v. Jenks, 574 N.E.2d 492 (Ohio 1991) (test for sufficiency: view evidence in light most favorable to prosecution)
- State v. Thompkins, 678 N.E.2d 541 (Ohio 1997) (appellate review addresses whether evidence, if believed, supports conviction)
- State v. Straley, 11 N.E.3d 1175 (Ohio 2014) (elements of R.C. 2921.12 tampering with evidence: knowledge, act, and purposeful intent)
- State v. Drummond, 854 N.E.2d 1038 (Ohio 2006) (trial court discretion in admitting specific-act impeachment under Evid.R.608(B))