State v. Hucks
2016 Ohio 323
Ohio Ct. App.2016Background
- April 27, 2014: Hucks arrested for OVI, breath-test and related offenses after traffic stop; he demanded a jury trial and requested discovery.
- May 1 and May 12, 2014: Hucks submitted initial and additional discovery requests (including Intoxilyzer 8000 service records and station videotape). State responded May 9 to the first request; dispute remained over additional materials.
- June 16, 2014: Pretrial—court ordered the state to provide additional discovery by June 30 after counsel’s oral request to compel; state said some records must be obtained from Ohio Dept. of Health.
- July 2, 2014: Hucks filed a formal motion to compel discovery. At July 11 hearing, counsel said testimony would be necessary and requested (and the court set) an evidentiary hearing on September 9; the court continued the July 24 jury trial.
- State produced some materials; disputes continued; Hucks filed motions to suppress and in limine on October 16 and later moved to dismiss for statutory speedy-trial violation (R.C. 2945.71/72). Trial court denied dismissal; Hucks entered no-contest plea to prohibited-concentration charge and appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Hucks) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether R.C. 2945.72 tolls speedy-trial time for the period between July 2 motion to compel and Oct. 16 motions to suppress | Time tolled because defendant filed motions that reasonably required delay for hearing, state to respond, and court to rule | The 106-day span from July 2 to Oct. 16 should be chargeable to the state and thus violated the 90-day statutory limit | Court held tolling was proper for at least 69 days (reasonable continuance); additional 30 days tolled for May 12 discovery request; at most 64 days were chargeable—no statutory speedy-trial violation. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Brown, 98 Ohio St.3d 121 (Ohio 2002) (defendant’s discovery demand tolls speedy-trial clock)
- State v. Sanchez, 110 Ohio St.3d 274 (Ohio 2006) (no affirmative duty on state to show prosecutor’s attention was diverted to toll delay)
- State v. Ladd, 56 Ohio St.2d 197 (Ohio 1977) (legislative purpose of speedy-trial statute to prevent inexcusable delay)
- State v. Saffell, 35 Ohio St.3d 90 (Ohio 1988) (what constitutes a reasonable time for continuance depends on case facts)
- State v. Blackburn, 118 Ohio St.3d 163 (Ohio 2008) (R.C. 2945.71 implements constitutional speedy-trial right)