State v. Justus
2016 Ohio 7078
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2016Background
- On July 5, 2015, Officer Laskowski stopped Zachary Justus for alleged marked lane violations and claimed signs of impairment (slurred speech, uncooperative, staggering); Justus refused field sobriety tests and was arrested for OVI.
- Initial charges were filed; discovery was provided to defense counsel on August 7, 2015 (including a link to cruiser video).
- On August 12, 2015, an additional OVI citation was filed; Justus pleaded not guilty to that charge as well.
- On August 25, 2015, Justus filed a motion to suppress alleging lack of reasonable suspicion for continued detention; the motion was filed outside the Traf.R. 11(C) deadline and sought leave to file late.
- The trial court denied leave to file the untimely motion, relying on perceived conflicts between the motion’s factual allegations and the officer’s affidavit rather than expressly finding whether good cause excused the delay.
- The state later dismissed the original charges in exchange for Justus pleading no contest to one OVI count; Justus appealed the denial of leave to file the suppression motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying leave to file an out-of-time motion to suppress | Justus: counsel had recently met client, discovery arrived Aug 7, and video had not been received; these constitute good cause and the motion alleged facts warranting suppression | State: trial court found the motion’s factual assertions conflicted with officer’s affidavit and denied leave | Court reversed and remanded for clarification because the trial court focused on merits/conflicts rather than expressly addressing whether good cause excused the late filing |
| Whether the trial court was required to hold a hearing on the suppression motion when leave was denied | Justus: if leave permitted, his motion stated grounds that would require a hearing | State: trial court is not obligated to hold a hearing on an untimely motion; merits may be considered in discretion | Court did not decide on hearing requirement; remanded so trial court can first clarify its decision on leave to file |
Key Cases Cited
- Robson v. State, 165 Ohio App.3d 621 (4th Dist. 2006) (untimely pretrial motion requires movant to offer a convincing reason for relief)
- Phillips v. State, 74 Ohio St.3d 72 (Ohio 1995) (standards regarding timely assertion of pretrial defenses)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (Ohio 1983) (abuse of discretion standard defined)
- Codeluppi v. State, 139 Ohio St.3d 165 (Ohio 2014) (motion to suppress must notify prosecutor and court of legal and factual bases to require a hearing)
- Shindler v. State, 70 Ohio St.3d 54 (Ohio 1994) (suppress motion pleading standards to obtain a hearing)