State v. Johnson
2017 Ohio 1043
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Theodore Johnson was arrested Jan. 7, 2016 after being caught leaving a Kroger with stolen goods and a napkin containing a substance later tested as .11 grams of heroin.
- Initially indicted for fifth-degree theft (Jan. 14); superseding indictment added fifth-degree possession of heroin (Mar. 31).
- Jury trial originally set for Mar. 23 (within speedy-trial limits), continued sua sponte that day because the court was occupied with an older case.
- Trial later set for Apr. 21; Johnson filed a demand for the testing analyst to testify (Apr. 12). The state moved to continue because the BCI forensic scientist was unavailable; court continued trial to May 17 (Apr. 19 entry).
- Johnson moved to dismiss for violation of his speedy-trial right (May 13); court denied the motion, Johnson pled no contest and was sentenced to consecutive 10-month terms (May 17).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Johnson's statutory right to a speedy trial was violated | State: continuances and tolling events made the May 17 trial within statutory time | Johnson: trial was not held within statutory speedy-trial period and must be dismissed | Court: continuances (defense discovery demand, sua sponte court continuance, and continuance for unavailable BCI analyst) tolled time; no violation |
| Whether the continuance for the unavailable forensic analyst was reasonable/necessary | State: absence of the analyst could render the BCI report inadmissible; continuance was necessary | Johnson: state could have produced a replacement analyst; a hearing was required to explore alternatives | Court: continuance was reasonable and necessary under the circumstances; no hearing was required because record resolved the issue |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Ladd, 56 Ohio St.2d 197 (Ohio 1978) (speedy-trial right is fundamental)
- State v. Pachay, 64 Ohio St.2d 218 (Ohio 1980) (speedy-trial right applied to states via Fourteenth Amendment)
- Brecksville v. Cook, 75 Ohio St.3d 53 (Ohio 1996) (statutes limiting speedy-trial relief must be strictly construed against the state)
- State v. Mincy, 2 Ohio St.3d 6 (Ohio 1982) (trial court must journalize continuance and reasons before speedy-trial deadline)
- State v. Saffell, 35 Ohio St.3d 90 (Ohio 1988) (continuances for unavailable witnesses can be reasonable tolling events)
- State v. Broughton, 62 Ohio St.3d 253 (Ohio 1991) (superseding indictment based on same facts counts against the state when defendant is jailed)
- State v. Brown, 98 Ohio St.3d 121 (Ohio 2002) (discovery demand is a tolling event under speedy-trial statute)