State v. Newsome, 2017 Ohio 7488

Jason Newsome was sentenced to community control after pleading guilty to felony heroin trafficking; a notice alleged he violated community control after an incident on 9/14/2016.
The State withdrew an allegation of causing/attempting physical harm because the victim would not cooperate, proceeding solely on a charge that Newsome obstructed official business.
Deputy Dustin Wesselhoeft testified he and other officers responded to reports of an intoxicated person and an alleged assault at the victim’s home; occupants reported Newsome had been at the residence.
Officers observed a car enter and leave the driveway, stopped it, were told Newsome had been dropped off, returned to the house, were told Newsome briefly entered then fled into nearby woods, and later found Newsome hiding in weeds.
Newsome objected at the revocation hearing that much of the deputy’s testimony was hearsay; the trial court overruled the objections, found Newsome violated community control by obstructing official business, and imposed an eighteen-month prison term.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether State proved obstructing official business by substantial evidence	Wesselhoeft’s testimony showed Newsome knowingly hampered officers’ investigation by fleeing and hiding	Newsome argued mere avoidance or silence is not an affirmative act and there was no officer order to disobey	Court held Newsome’s flight and hiding were affirmative acts that impeded officers and supported revocation
Whether admitting and relying on hearsay at the revocation hearing violated due process	State argued Rules of Evidence don’t apply to revocation hearings and the officer’s statements explained investigative steps	Newsome argued the State’s case rested on hearsay from non-testifying witnesses, implicating confrontation rights	Court held Evid. Rules are inapplicable; much testimony was non-hearsay (explaining investigative acts) and admission did not deprive Newsome of due process

C.E. Morris Co. v. Foley Constr. Co., 54 Ohio St.2d 279, 376 N.E.2d 578 (Ohio 1978) (standard for "some competent, credible evidence" review)
Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119 (U.S. 2000) (headlong flight is suggestive of wrongdoing and justifies further police investigation)
Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491 (U.S. 1983) (individuals may ignore police approach absent reasonable suspicion)
Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429 (U.S. 1991) (refusal to cooperate alone does not justify detention)
Barnett v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth., 81 Ohio St.3d 385, 692 N.E.2d 135 (Ohio 1998) (probation/parole can be revoked despite dismissal or acquittal of underlying charges)
Talty v. State, 103 Ohio St.3d 177, 814 N.E.2d 1201 (Ohio 2004) (no meaningful distinction between community control and probation)