State v. Jackson, 2012 Ohio 3785

Jackson was convicted of one count of gross sexual imposition involving his eleven-year-old daughter.
A polygraph examination preceded Jackson’s verbal and written confessions, which Jackson argues were coerced.
A suppression hearing was held and the trial court denied Jackson’s motion to suppress statements.
Jackson was not in custody at the time of the polygraph; he voluntarily submitted to testing and left freely.
The trial court sentenced Jackson to five years’ imprisonment and designated him as a Tier II sex offender.
On appeal, Jackson challenges the denial of suppression, the mistrial denial, and the five-year sentence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the suppression denial correct?	Jackson argues his statements were coerced and obtained in violation of Miranda.	State contends he was not in custody and Miranda did not apply; waiver was voluntary.	suppression denied; statements voluntary and Miranda-not-required
Did the court abuse its discretion in sentencing?	Jackson claims the court failed to consider statutory sentencing factors and purposes.	State contends sentence within the statutory range and that no explicit findings were required.	sentence within range; no mandatory findings required
Was a mistrial warranted due to polygraph-related testimony?	Jackson asserts the polygraph-related testimony was prejudicial and necessitated a mistrial.	State argues curative instructions and the minimal mention did not prejudice the defense.	no abuse of discretion; no mistrial needed
Did the court err by refusing to suppress or suppressively rely on the polygraph record?	Jackson contends coercion and deception during polygraph to elicit confession.	State asserts voluntariness and permissible admonitions to tell the truth were allowed.	not coercive; confession voluntary
Should appellate review have found errors in the suppression ruling given the record?	Jackson argues trial court misapplied law regarding Miranda custody and voluntariness.	State maintains trial court correctly applied standards and credibility determinations.	no reversible error

State v. Mills, 62 Ohio St.3d 357 (1992) (mixed questions of law and fact in suppression review; appellate review de novo of legal conclusions)
State v. Fanning, 1 Ohio St.3d 19 (1982) (establishes framework for suppression review and credibility of witnesses)
State v. McNamara, 124 Ohio App.3d 706 (1997) (appellate de novo review of suppression rulings)
State v. Burnside, 100 Ohio St.3d 152 (2003) (custody and admissibility standards for Miranda rights)
State v. Grunder, 2005-Ohio-2145 (2005) (voluntariness framework; totality of circumstances)