2018 Ohio 3122
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- Victim Jane (minor) reported on April 4–5, 2017 that her stepfather, Norman Moore, had sexually touched her (most recently April 3, 2017) and made statements about similar conduct involving her sister Jill.
- A single-count indictment for gross sexual imposition (based on the April 3 allegation) was returned April 7, 2017; Moore was arrested April 12, 2017 and remained jailed thereafter.
- A search warrant for Moore’s cell phone (April 19, 2017) relied on Sergeant Ward’s affidavit describing Jane’s statements and internet searches on Moore’s phone for stepfather/stepdaughter pornography; the search recovered images (non-nude) and searches dated April 3 and March 30, 2017.
- Further forensic interviews of Jane and Jill produced more detailed allegations of long‑term sexual abuse, leading a grand jury on June 30, 2017 to return a 65‑count indictment (rape and gross sexual imposition) covering separate episodes involving both daughters.
- The state dismissed the original single-count indictment without prejudice after the 65‑count indictment; Moore moved to dismiss (speedy‑trial) and suppress (cell phone), both denied by the trial court after hearings.
- Moore pleaded no contest to one count of rape and one count of gross sexual imposition in October 2017, was sentenced to an aggregate eight years, and appealed denial of the motions to dismiss and suppress; this Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether re‑indictment tolled or restarted speedy‑trial time such that charges should be dismissed | State: The June 30 indictment added new factual allegations and therefore restarted the speedy‑trial clock | Moore: State knew of the additional facts at time of original April 7 indictment, so original speedy‑trial timetable should apply and dismissal is required | Court: Held re‑indictment charged facts materially different from the April 7 indictment; Baker exception inapplicable; motion to dismiss denied |
| Whether search warrant for Moore’s cell phone lacked probable cause and must be suppressed | State: Affidavit contained sufficient allegations (victim statements about touching, requests for photos, porn on phone) to establish probable cause to search phone for evidence | Moore: Affidavit merely alleged attempts/requests ("tried" or "asked") and pornography (lawful) so no probable cause that phone contained evidence of crimes | Court: Held affidavit’s totality (victim statements, internet searches, and phone-related allegations) provided a substantial basis for probable cause; suppression denied |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Adams, 43 Ohio St.3d 67 (1989) (where later charges arise from same facts known at initial indictment, speedy‑trial timetable applies)
- State v. Baker, 78 Ohio St.3d 108 (1997) (subsequent indictment not bound by original speedy‑trial timetable when charges arise from different facts or facts were unknown at initial indictment)
- State v. Parker, 113 Ohio St.3d 207 (2007) (clarifies interplay of Adams and Baker: later charges arising from the same incident toll speedy‑trial time)
- State v. Jones, 143 Ohio St.3d 266 (2015) (totality‑of‑circumstances approach to probable cause for search warrants)
- Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983) (probable cause for warrants evaluated under a common‑sense, totality‑of‑the‑circumstances standard)
- State v. George, 45 Ohio St.3d 325 (1989) (magistrate must find a fair probability that evidence will be found based on affidavit)