State v. Hatfield
2011 Ohio 6620
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- State appeals after trial court granted Hatfield's motion in limine excluding an audiotape of a drug transaction with a confidential informant.
- Undercover operation involved $1,400 buy money; informant recorded, purportedly capturing Hatfield purchasing powder cocaine inside a residence.
- Hatfield was indicted with schoolyard specifications; he argued the tape contained hearsay, lacked discovery, and needed informant testimony for authentication.
- Trial court listened to the tape and ruled admission would violate Hatfield's confrontation rights unless the informant testified; the state declined to call the informant.
- Trial proceeded; the state sought to appeal mid-trial after a Crim.R. 12(K) notice; the court later acquitted Hatfield and dismissed the case.
- Appellate review addressed whether the trial court lacked jurisdiction to proceed after a mid-trial notice of appeal and whether retrial was allowable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| whether taped statements were admissions by party opponent | Hatfield | Hatfield | State's argument rejected; error not preserved; tape not in record. |
| whether trial continued after notice of appeal; jurisdiction to proceed | State | Hatfield | Trial court lacked jurisdiction; proceedings void; judgment of acquittal affirmed but retrial barred. |
| whether the state is entitled to mid-trial appeal from evidentiary ruling | State | Hatfield | State's mid-trial appeal rights recognized; however, the subsequent acquittal forecloses retrial. |
| whether double jeopardy bars retrial after acquittal where appeal was proper | State | Hatfield | Retrial barred; final acquittal requires dismissal; despite error, cannot retry. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Bistricky, 51 Ohio St.3d 157 (Ohio 1990) (discretionary review of legal questions leading to acquittal; limits on double jeopardy)
- In re S.J., 106 Ohio St.3d 11 (2005) (notice of appeal divests trial court of jurisdiction pending appeal)
- In re Terrance P., 124 Ohio App.3d 487 (1997) (trial court lacks jurisdiction post-notice of appeal; residual jurisdiction only for non-appealable matters)
- State v. Fraternal Order of Eagles Aerie 0337 Buckeye, 58 Ohio St.3d 166 (1991) (motion to suppress grant cannot directly foreclose state's right of appeal; acquittal may still be upheld)
- State v. Hamilton, 97 Ohio App.3d 648 (1994) (erroneous basis for acquittal does not require reversal if innocence is still protected)
- State v. Davidson, 17 Ohio St.3d 132 (1985) (motion to suppress as 'motion to suppress' for purposes of Crim.R. 12(K))
- U.S. v. Martin Linen Supply Co., 430 U.S. 564 (U.S. 1977) (double jeopardy safeguards during trial when evidence is admitted)
- U.S. v. Scott, 437 U.S. 82 (U.S. 1978) (acquittal ends prosecution; retrial prohibited)
- Swisher v. Brady, 438 U.S. 204 (U.S. 1978) (final judgment of acquittal limits retrial; strong public policy in finality of judgments)