State v. Kittle
2017 Ohio 7853
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Police surveilled an apartment suspected of methamphetamine activity; officers stopped a car leaving the apartment and arrested passenger J.S., who had meth in her purse. Defendant Dana Kittle was not arrested at the scene.
- Officers thereafter entered the apartment with consent, smelled meth production, and found meth lab materials and finished methamphetamine.
- Officer Lemonier interviewed Kittle at the police station; Kittle admitted buying pseudoephedrine for J.S. in exchange for meth.
- A grand jury indicted Kittle on three counts (illegal assembly/possession of chemicals for manufacture of drugs; illegal manufacture; aggravated possession); the State dismissed the latter two counts before trial.
- At bench trial the State called Officer Lemonier and introduced portions of his interview and NPLEx (pseudoephedrine-purchase) records; the court found Kittle guilty and sentenced her to five years’ imprisonment.
- Kittle appealed, raising three assignments of error: (1) improper admission/authentication of NPLEx records and Confrontation Clause issues; (2) judicial prodding/supplementation of State’s evidence mid-trial; (3) amendment of indictment timeframe on morning of trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Kittle) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Admissibility/authentication of NPLEx records and Confrontation Clause | NPLEx records are business records; Officer Lemonier was sufficiently qualified to authenticate; records are nontestimonial | NPLEX records required a custodian; Officer Lemonier was not qualified to lay foundation; records were testimonial implicating Confrontation Clause | Records are nontestimonial; Officer Lemonier had sufficient familiarity to be a qualified witness under Evid.R. 803(6); admission not an abuse of discretion; assignment overruled |
| 2. Trial court questioning and direction to supplement evidence (Evid.R. 614(B)) | Court may question witnesses impartially and, in a bench trial, has flexibility to develop the record; permitting an expanded NPLEx printout was within discretion | Court abdicated neutrality by directing State to produce an expanded NPLEx record mid-trial, prejudicing Kittle | No manifest abuse of discretion; judge’s actions were impartial and permissible in bench trial; assignment overruled |
| 3. Amendment of indictment timeframe on morning of trial | Expanding the timeframe to the prior week was allowed; evidence still supported conviction on original date (Dec. 2, 2014) | Amendment broadened charge after grand jury and violated due process/grand-jury rights, prejudicing defense | Even if amendment were erroneous, Kittle showed no prejudice because court based guilt on December 2, 2014 only; no reversible error; assignment overruled |
Key Cases Cited
- Ohio v. Clark, 135 S. Ct. 2173 (U.S. 2015) (defines "testimonial" statements for Confrontation Clause purposes)
- United States v. Collins, 799 F.3d 554 (6th Cir. 2015) (similar meth-purchase database records were not clearly testimonial)
- State v. Hood, 135 Ohio St.3d 137 (Ohio 2012) (explains qualifications for a witness authenticating business records under Evid.R. 803(6))
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (Ohio 1983) (abuse-of-discretion standard for appellate review)