State v. Horvath, 49 N.E.3d 847

Daniel Horvath was charged with one count of misdemeanor theft after a Walmart customer, Alicia Burnat, reported her wallet missing following a June 28, 2014 shopping trip.
Police reviewed Walmart security footage (later destroyed/recorded over by Walmart) and obtained still photographs; Officer Skornicka testified the video showed Horvath taking the cart containing the wallet and that Horvath made an oral admission and returned the wallet to police.
The State amended the complaint to specify the stolen item as a “dark blue butterfly wallet.”
Horvath earlier waived his speedy-trial right in order to obtain an extension for filing pretrial motions; he later moved to suppress testimony about the destroyed surveillance video and moved to dismiss on speedy-trial grounds.
At a February 23, 2015 hearing Horvath entered a no-contest plea; the trial court found him guilty, sentenced him, and ordered restitution.
Horvath appealed, arguing (1) the court entered guilt without an explanation of circumstances as required by R.C. 2937.07, (2) speedy-trial violation, and (3) erroneous denial of his suppression motion regarding hearsay from the unavailable footage.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether court may find guilt after a no-contest plea without an oral "explanation of circumstances" read into the record per R.C. 2937.07	State relied on the complaint, Officer Skornicka's prior testimony, and the plea as sufficient basis for conviction	Horvath argued statute requires the facts supporting each essential element be read into the record; plea alone insufficient	Court held conviction invalid: required explanation was not read into the record and plea alone cannot substitute; reversed
Whether Horvath's speedy-trial waiver was invalid and required dismissal	State maintained waiver/extension was valid and trial court properly denied dismissal	Horvath argued waiver was coerced as condition of extension and speedy-trial days were not properly tolled	Moot (not decided)
Whether trial court erred in denying suppression of hearsay testimony about destroyed Walmart video	State argued officer testimony and stills permitted admission despite video unavailability	Horvath argued testimony about video contents was hearsay with no eyewitness corroboration and video was destroyed	Moot (not decided)

State v. Bowers, 9 Ohio St.3d 148 (Ohio 1984) (trial court must read complaint or otherwise place facts supporting each element on record when accepting misdemeanor no-contest plea)
State v. Provino, 175 Ohio App.3d 283 (Ohio Ct. App. 2007) (explanation of circumstances requires facts sufficient to support all essential elements)
State v. Kareski, 137 Ohio St.3d 92 (Ohio 2013) (reversal for insufficient evidence bars retrial under double jeopardy)
Burks v. United States, 437 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1978) (reversal for insufficient evidence precludes retrial under Double Jeopardy)