2019 Ohio 2602
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- On Sept. 23, 2017, Kimberly S. Heil was involved in a single‑car accident and cited for OVI, failure to control, and not wearing a seat belt.
- Heil was arraigned Oct. 11, 2017; multiple trial dates were continued. Heil moved to suppress any blood test results; that motion was denied as moot after the State told the court it had no blood results.
- 156 days after arraignment (March 16, 2018), the State moved to obtain Heil’s medical records; the court granted the motion. The State received the records and sought a continuance on March 27, 2018, to consult an expert and produce an expert report.
- The court continued the trial (to June 12, 2018). Heil moved to reconsider, arguing the State’s delay violated Crim.R. 16(K) and requesting the court consider excluding expert testimony.
- The trial court sanctioned the State for the discovery violation by permitting use of the medical records but precluding the State from presenting expert testimony at trial.
- The State filed an appeal under Crim.R. 12(K); the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the State failed to seek leave to appeal under R.C. 2945.67(A) and App.R. 5(C).
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Heil's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred by excluding the State’s expert testimony | Trial court abused discretion by excluding expert testimony as a discovery sanction | Exclusion was proper sanction for State’s untimely production and Rule 16(K) noncompliance | Court did not reach merits; appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction |
| Whether the exclusion order was appealable as of right (i.e., functionally equivalent to a suppression order) | The State invoked Crim.R. 12(K) to appeal the exclusion | Heil argued the order was a routine evidentiary sanction, not a motion to suppress, so the State needed leave to appeal | The exclusion was a simple evidentiary ruling/sanction, not functionally a suppression under R.C. 2945.67(A); State needed (but did not obtain) leave to appeal, so dismissal for lack of jurisdiction was required |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Fisher, 35 Ohio St.3d 22 (discusses limits on State's right to appeal in criminal matters)
- State v. Davidson, 17 Ohio St.3d 132 (defines when a motion is functionally a motion to suppress for purposes of State appeal)
- State ex rel. Steffen v. Court of Appeals, First App. Dist., 126 Ohio St.3d 405 (State has no absolute right of appeal in criminal matters absent statutory authorization)
- In re M.M., 135 Ohio St.3d 375 (statutory framework governs State appeals and failure to follow leave procedure requires dismissal)
- Whitaker‑Merrell Co. v. Geupel Constr. Co., 29 Ohio St.2d 184 (appellate courts must raise jurisdictional issues sua sponte)
- State v. Wallace, 43 Ohio St.2d 1 (procedural rules governing State motions for leave to appeal)