State v. Jones
2014 Ohio 4605
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- John R. Jones was arrested Aug. 28, 2013, and indicted Sept. 3, 2013 on domestic-violence and protection-order charges; he remained in jail on $20,000 bail.
- A jury trial was set for Dec. 9, 2013; Jones filed a motion to dismiss for violation of his speedy-trial rights on Dec. 6, 2013.
- Jones served a demand for discovery on Sept. 11, 2013; the State responded Sept. 19 and Sept. 24—court treated that demand as tolling speedy-trial time.
- After denying Jones’s motion to dismiss, the trial court reset trial to Dec. 23, 2013 (the last day under the speedy-trial clock).
- The State moved for a continuance Dec. 19, 2013, saying its primary witness (a responding officer) was on vacation until Dec. 25; the court denied that motion and again denied a renewed continuance on Dec. 23.
- The trial court dismissed the indictment with prejudice because the State was not prepared to proceed on Dec. 23 and the speedy-trial time had expired; the State appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Jones) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred in denying the State's motion for continuance because a necessary witness was on vacation | Unavailability of a necessary witness is a reasonable ground for a continuance under R.C. 2945.72(H); a short delay was justified | Jones argued his speedy-trial time had run and the State could have prepared witnesses or contacted them over the weekend; key witnesses were unwilling to cooperate | Court held denial was not an abuse of discretion; State should have prepared witnesses for the immediate trial date and a continuance would have violated Jones’s speedy-trial rights; dismissal affirmed |
| Whether Jones’s Sept. 11 discovery demand tolled the speedy-trial clock | State maintained the demand tolled speedy time from Sept. 11 to Sept. 24 because the State was responding to the demand | Jones argued speedy time had expired and sought dismissal | Court held the discovery demand tolled time between Sept. 11 and Sept. 24; trial was ultimately set at the last available speedy-trial day and dismissal was proper after State failed to proceed |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Dankworth, 172 Ohio App.3d 159 (2d Dist. 2007) (discusses triple-counting rule and speedy-trial calculations)
- State v. Brown, 98 Ohio St.3d 121 (2002) (defendant's demand for discovery tolls speedy-trial time)
- State v. Saffell, 35 Ohio St.3d 90 (1988) (continuance permissible when arresting officer on vacation if granted before speedy-trial expiration)
- State v. Palmer, 84 Ohio St.3d 103 (1998) (statutory grounds for tolling and continuances under R.C. 2945.72)