State v. Hatter
2014 Ohio 1910
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- State filed a timely appeal from a trial court order granting Hatter’s motion to suppress evidence.
- Hatter moved in limine to exclude statements by the decedent Wallace and text messages; he attached bulleted summaries of witnesses’ anticipated testimony.
- Trial court granted the motion in part and denied it in part, excluding certain statements while allowing phone evidence.
- The court later recast the in limine motion as a suppression motion and precluded any related testimony, purportedly on hearsay and other-acts grounds.
- The First District held the appeal proper under R.C. 2945.67 and Crim.R. 12(K), and that the trial court’s suppression ruling was premature and too broad, meriting reversal and remand for admissibility determinations with proper context.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the State’s appeal from the suppression order proper? | State argues finality under R.C. 2945.67 and Crim.R. 12(K) after recasting as suppression. | Hatter contends rulings on in limine are interlocutory and not appealable. | Yes; the suppression-order finality and appeal were proper. |
| Did the trial court err in excluding the three witnesses’ testimony based on summaries without hearing the interviews? | State contends some testimony may be admissible under exceptions and 404(B). | Hatter argues the court properly excluded the witnesses under hearsay/404(B) grounds. | Yes; the court erred by precluding testimony without full context and should remand for admissibility determinations. |
| Should some of the witnesses’ testimony be potentially admissible under evidentiary exceptions (e.g., excited utterances, state of mind, 404(B))? | State asserts potential admissibility under established exceptions. | Hatter argues narrative summaries cannot be salvaged for admissibility. | Remand to determine admissibility with proper context. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Grubb, 28 Ohio St.3d 199 (1986) (interlocutory rulings on motions in limine may be appeals when final as suppression)
- State v. Davidson, 17 Ohio St.3d 132 (1985) (establishes that suppressions are appealable when final under Crim.R. 12(K))
- State v. Jackson, 92 Ohio App.3d 467 (1993) (clarifies appealability of suppression-related orders)
- State v. Bassham, 94 Ohio St.3d 269 (2002) (requires proper certification for criminal-suppress evidence appeals)
- State v. Malinovsky, 60 Ohio St.3d 20 (1991) (discusses procedure following suppression rulings and appellate review)