State v. Meadows, 2013 Ohio 1742

Meadows was convicted in Warren Municipal Court of failing to obey a Board of Health order under R.C. 3709.21 after a long-running sewage-system remediation dispute.
Complaint filed October 18, 2011 alleged Meadows violated the 2010 Board order by not completing the system upgrade.
Historical events included a 2006 disapproval of the existing system, permits issued in 2006 and extensions through 2008, and a 2010 permit for installation.
Board of Health issued an August 18, 2010 order to upgrade within 60 days, with the 2010 permit valid for one year.
Dye-test evidence and inspector testimony in 2012 showed the system not operating properly, supporting the violation finding.
Meadows appealed arguing statute-of-limitations issues and the Confrontation Clause, but the appellate court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether continuing conduct tolls the statute of limitations.	Meadows	Meadows	Statute tolled; continuing conduct extended period.
Whether a complainant must testify for a conviction.	Meadows	Meadows	No Confrontation Clause violation; testimony of Pink not required.

State v. Swartz, 88 Ohio St.3d 131 (2000) (nuisance/continuing conduct tolls limitations)
State v. Bess, 126 Ohio St.3d 350 (2010) (statute of limitations purpose; prosecutorial leniency not shown)
Climaco, Climaco, Seminatore, Lefkowitz & Garofoli Co., 85 Ohio St.3d 582 (1999) (purpose of statute of limitations)
Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) (Confrontation Clause; testimonial statements defined)
Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 (2006) (testimonial vs. nontestimonial statements)
State v. Ansell, 2009-Ohio-4802 (Ohio 2009) (complaining witness not always required to testify)
State v. Helman, 2004-Ohio-4867 (Ohio 2004) (no requirement that complainant testify)
State v. Kaseda, 2012-Ohio-4652 (Ohio 2012) (conviction upheld without complainant testimony)