State v. Mitchell
2016 Ohio 7674
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Porter Mitchell was charged with drug-possession and weapons-under-disability counts; the state presented its case and the jury deliberated about 11 hours.
- During deliberations the trial court declared a mistrial after jurors consulted law/instruction books (Mitchell says juror misconduct); the court ordered a second trial.
- Mitchell filed a Crim.R. 29(C) motion for acquittal after the mistrial; the trial court denied the motion, citing credibility conflicts for the jury to resolve.
- Mitchell appealed the denial; this court raised sua sponte whether the denial is a final, appealable order and directed briefing on jurisdiction.
- The court concluded the denial of a Crim.R. 29(C) motion is interlocutory (not a final order) under R.C. 2505.02 and dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether denial of a Crim.R. 29(C) motion for acquittal after a mistrial is a final, appealable order | The State: denial is interlocutory and not appealable now | Mitchell: denial is final and appealable because the mistrial resulted from jury misconduct (not a simple hung jury) | Denial is not a final, appealable order; appeal dismissed |
| Whether a Crim.R. 29(C) motion is a "provisional remedy" or ancillary proceeding under R.C. 2505.02(B)(4) | — | Mitchell: (implicit) argues exceptional circumstances make it appealable | Motion for acquittal is not an ancillary or provisional remedy; R.C. 2505.02(B)(4) does not apply |
| Whether denial of the motion "affects a substantial right" under R.C. 2505.02(B)(2) | — | Mitchell: denial effectively prejudices defendant or forecloses relief | Court: denial does not affect a substantial right because defendant can seek relief at retrial; not final |
| Whether prior appellate and supreme-court authority permits treating such denials as final after mistrial for juror misconduct | State: prior cases treat denials as interlocutory even after mistrial | Mitchell: distinguishes jury-misconduct mistrial from hung-jury cases to justify appeal | Court: no authority supports Mitchell’s distinction; precedent treats denials as interlocutory, including cases with misconduct-related mistrials |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Anderson, 6 N.E.3d 23 (Ohio 2014) (explains R.C. 2505.02 final-order framework and applies it in criminal appeals)
- State v. Ross, 920 N.E.2d 162 (Ohio App.) (denial of Crim.R. 29 motion after mistrial treated as interlocutory)
- State v. Muncie, 746 N.E.2d 1092 (Ohio 2001) (requires satisfaction of each element of R.C. 2505.02(B)(4))
- State v. Upshaw, 852 N.E.2d 711 (Ohio 2006) (discusses 1998 amendments to R.C. 2505.02 and their broader scope)
- Bell v. Mt. Sinai Med. Ctr., 616 N.E.2d 181 (Ohio 1993) (definition of when an order "affects a substantial right")