State v. Holtvogt, 2012 Ohio 2233

Holtvogt was convicted of illegal firearm possession in a liquor-permit premises and tampering with evidence after a bench trial.
The Fricker’s restaurant, a D-5i permit holder, was the location where Holtvogt discharged a handgun, injuring his girlfriend, whose Blackberry captured the bullet.
Holtvogt later provided statements at the police station to Captain Bush; the interview occurred in a secured office with the officer describing it as voluntary and non-custodial.
Holtvogt was allowed to leave after the interview, and later at his auto-repair shop the jacket and other items were photographed and questioned by officers.
The trial court denied the suppression motion; Holtvogt was found guilty on both counts, and he appeals arguing suppression was improper and that the evidence was legally insufficient.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the police interrogation was custodial under Miranda	Holtvogt	Holtvogt	Not custodial; warnings not required; statements admitted
Whether the evidence supports illegal-possession of a firearm in a liquor-permit premises	State	Holtvogt	Sufficient to convict on illegal possession
Whether there is sufficient evidence of tampering with evidence	State	Holtvogt	Insufficient to prove concealment/removal with improper purpose; tampering reversed

State v. Petitjean, 140 Ohio App.3d 517 (2d Dist.2000) (due-process voluntariness; totality of circumstances not requiring Miranda warnings)
State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (1991) (sufficiency standard (jurors could find elements beyond reasonable doubt))
State v. Hopfer, 112 Ohio App.3d 521 (2d Dist.1996) (promises of leniency render confession involuntary only if overborne)
Beheler v. California, 463 U.S. 1121 (1983) (custodial interrogation trigger; police need not always give warnings if not in custody)
State v. Sosnoskie, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 22713, 2009-Ohio-2327 () (non-custodial station interrogation may not require Miranda warnings)