State v. Johnson
2015 Ohio 3449
Ohio Ct. App.2015Background
- Jason M. Johnson was indicted for OVI (R.C. 4511.19) with an allegation he had five or more prior OVI convictions within 20 years, making the charge a fourth-degree felony, and a related specification under R.C. 2941.1413; he was also charged with driving under suspension (R.C. 4510.16).
- Johnson moved to dismiss the R.C. 2941.1413 specification as facially unconstitutional (Equal Protection) and separately moved to suppress evidence of his prior convictions, arguing the State could not prove he had five prior OVI convictions (specifically challenging a September 6, 2000 Akron conviction).
- At a suppression hearing defense counsel limited the factual challenge to the 2000 conviction; the trial court declined to rule on the constitutional challenge but dismissed the specification because it concluded the State failed to prove the requisite prior convictions.
- The trial court also granted the motion it labeled a "motion to suppress," excluding evidence of all prior convictions under Evid.R. 404(B) as unduly prejudicial since it believed the State could not prove the five prior convictions.
- The State appealed. The Ninth District overruled the defendant’s motion to strike parts of the State’s appeal and reversed, holding the trial court erred in dismissing the specification prior to trial and erred in treating a non-constitutional evidentiary/in limine challenge as a motion to suppress.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Johnson) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court properly dismissed the R.C. 2941.1413 specification before trial | The specification was supported by prior-conviction allegations and dismissal was improper; dismissal is premature where the indictment is facially sufficient | Specification was facially unconstitutional (Equal Protection) and/or the State could not prove the requisite prior convictions | Reversed: trial court erred to the extent it dismissed the specification pretrial; a motion to dismiss tests facial sufficiency only and summary factfinding was improper |
| Whether the trial court properly suppressed evidence of prior convictions via a motion to suppress | The State argued suppression was improper because the issue was evidentiary and not a constitutional suppression matter; State may prove priors at trial | Evidence of priors should be excluded because State cannot prove five priors and admission would be unfairly prejudicial under Evid.R. 404(B) | Reversed: the challenge was evidentiary (motion in limine), not a constitutional Fourth/Fifth/Sixth ground for suppression; court should consider priors via proper evidentiary procedure at trial |
| Whether the State’s notice of appeal was limited to only the suppression ruling | State framed appeal as from the judgment entry granting the motion to suppress | Johnson argued the notice limited the appeal to suppression portion and moved to strike other arguments | Court refused to narrowly construe the notice given procedural irregularities and allowed the appeal to challenge the whole entry |
| Whether the trial court may make factual determinations about sufficiency of evidence when ruling on a pretrial motion to dismiss an indictment/specification | N/A (implicit State position: pretrial dismissal based on evidence is improper) | Trial court acted to resolve factual dispute about a prior conviction and dismissed specification | Court held trial court exceeded its role; may not resolve evidentiary sufficiency beyond the face of the indictment pretrial |
Key Cases Cited
- Allen v. State, 29 Ohio St.3d 53 (Ohio 1987) (admission of prior convictions may affect penalty; legal standards for use of priors discussed)
- Hilliard v. Elfrink, 77 Ohio St.3d 155 (Ohio 1997) (definition and limits of motions to suppress and evidence excluded for constitutional violations)
- Buckeye Union Ins. Co. v. Stiffler, 81 Ohio App.3d 227 (Ohio Ct. App. 1992) (App.R. 3(D) and scope of notice of appeal; notice limits issues appealed)
- State v. Scott, 174 Ohio App.3d 446 (Ohio Ct. App. 2007) (a motion to dismiss that requires examination of evidence beyond the indictment is improper and must wait until motion for acquittal)