State v. Mick
2017 Ohio 8922
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Richard C. Mick was indicted on multiple counts of sexual offenses against minors; K. Ronald Bailey (appellant) was retained counsel and substituted in as counsel about 11 months before trial.
- The case experienced multiple continuances; trial ultimately proceeded on October 4, 2016 after several last-minute continuance requests by Bailey (including personal commitments and alleged need for expert/investigator time).
- During trial Bailey twice refused the court’s direct orders to proceed, expressing he could not effectively represent his client; the judge gave a short continuance to research the issue but ultimately ordered Bailey to proceed.
- Bailey again refused to proceed in open court before the judge and jury; the trial continued, and afterward the court found Bailey in direct contempt, imposing 30 days’ jail, a $250 fine, and costs.
- Bailey appealed, arguing (inter alia) he faced an ethical dilemma, the court misconstrued permissive/mandatory language, improperly denied continuances and substitution of a live expert, and that contempt was improper; the appellate court reviewed for abuse of discretion and affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether contempt finding under R.C. 2705.01 was proper | State: Bailey refused direct orders in the court’s presence and obstructed administration of justice | Bailey: Refusal was justified by ethical obligations and inability to provide effective assistance; some court language was permissive not mandatory | Court: Held contempt proper; Bailey’s conduct occurred in court, was witnessed by judge, and lacked justification |
| Sufficiency of sanctions | State: Sanctions fall within statutory limits for first contempt offense | Bailey: Sanctions excessive or improper given circumstances | Court: Sanctions (30 days, $250, costs) are within R.C. 2705.05 and appropriate |
| Whether Bailey reasonably could refuse to proceed because of trial preparation issues (continuances, expert, client hospitalization) | Bailey: Trial should have been continued; denial forced ethical dilemma and ineffective assistance risk | State: Bailey had ample time (retained ~11 months), prior notices of witnesses, and could have proceeded and preserved objections for appeal | Court: Denials were not an abuse of discretion; Bailey’s lack of preparation was his responsibility |
| Whether a mistrial or substitution of counsel was required | Bailey: A substitute live expert or continuance/mistrial was necessary to avoid prejudice | State: No timely need shown; expert issues and joinder/notice were addressed earlier | Court: Mistrial/substitution not warranted; court reasonably denied relief and instructed preservation for appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Kilbane v. State, 61 Ohio St.2d 201 (discusses standard for reviewing contempt findings)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (abuse-of-discretion standard)
- Brown v. Executive 200, Inc., 64 Ohio St.2d 250 (criminal contempt requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt)
- Gasen v. State, 48 Ohio App.2d 191 (court officers face close scrutiny when disobeying orders; refusal justified only in narrow circumstances)
- In re Sherlock, 37 Ohio App.3d 204 (refusal to participate in open court may support contempt if unjustified)
- Pugh v. Pugh, 15 Ohio St.3d 136 (intent is generally immaterial to contempt; willfulness not required)