State v. Mapp, 2011 Ohio 4468

Mapp, a former ORW corrections officer, was charged with eight counts of sexual battery arising from inmate encounters in Harmon East staff bathrooms circa 2003–2004.
Initial indictment in 2008 (Case No. 08-CR-0039) contained 13 counts; all were dismissed on September 4, 2008, due to speedy-trial issues, then re-indicted in 2009 (Case No. 09-CR-0035) on 13 counts.
Trial occurred August 30–31, 2010; a video allegedly showing Mapp with an inmate on July 6, 2004 was proffered as other-acts evidence, but foundation issues led the court to exclude the video and any related testimony and give a limiting instruction.
ORW investigator Smith’s testimony about the video and investigations was struck as unreliable; the State’s ability to introduce video evidence was undermined, though three victims testified about assaults.
Post-trial, Mapp moved for mistrial, new trial, and acquittal on Brady grounds; the trial court conducted a Brady/possible-preservation hearing and ultimately ruled no Brady violation.
Sentencing on November 14, 2010 imposed three years on each count (eight counts), consecutive for a total of 24 years, plus tier-three sex-offender registration.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Brady violation and evidence preservation	Mapp contends the State failed to preserve exculpatory video evidence.	Mapp argues the missing video was materially exculpatory and its loss violated due process.	No Brady violation; under Geeslin/Youngblood, loss of potentially useful evidence without bad faith not due process violation.
Admissibility of video evidence and foundation	Video would support witnesses’ credibility and establish pattern of conduct.	Foundation was weak; evidence unreliable and inadvertently excluded.	Court properly excluded the video and related testimony due to improper foundation and unreliability; no error in light of Brady ruling.
Preindictment speedy-trial delay	Six-year preindictment delay prejudiced Mapp by losing evidence.	Delay was investigated; no actual prejudice shown because evidence preservation issue was not properly raised in dismissal motion.	Trial court did not err; delay not shown to be prejudicial; prior rulings incorporated; no dismissal based on preindictment delay.
Consecutive sentences legality	Aggregate term of 24 years may exceed statutory maximum for third-degree felonies and/or be disproportionate.	Court relied on rehabilitative factors and lack of remorse; consecutive sentences necessary for protection.	Consecutive sentences within statutory range; not contrary to law; adequate consideration of sentencing factors; affirmed.

State v. Davis, 116 Ohio St.3d 404 (2008) (Brady material must be both favorable and material to require disclosure)
Arizona v. Youngblood, 488 U.S. 51 (1988) (failure to preserve potentially useful evidence requires bad faith for due process claim)
Bagley v. United States, 473 U.S. 667 (1985) (materiality standard for Brady evidence; reasonable probability of different result)
Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (1995) (reasonable probability standard for material evidence in Brady context)
State v. Geeslin, Ohio 2007-Ohio-5239, 878 N.E.2d 1 (2007) (due process limits on lost evidence absent exculpatory value; bad-faith requirement considerations)
State v. Johnston, 39 Ohio St.3d 48 (1998) (Brady-related relief not to substitute for acquittal; new trial remedy emphasized)
State v. Rhines, 2010-Ohio-3117 (2010) (burden to prove Brady violation and exculpatory nature of evidence)