State v. Parker
2020 Ohio 4607
Ohio Ct. App.2020Background
- Two separate assaults on victim J.P.: Oct. 7, 2017 (alleged felonious assault; hospitalization) and Mar. 25, 2018 (alleged strangulation/domestic-violence). Multiple municipal and common-pleas cases were filed, dismissed, re‑indicted, and consolidated into the underlying indictment (case 5).
- Parker was arrested and held in jail for extended periods; he made numerous jail phone calls to J.P. urging her not to prosecute.
- The State moved to admit J.P.’s out-of-court statements under the forfeiture-by-wrongdoing doctrine (Evid.R. 804(B)(6)), arguing Parker’s conduct and calls caused her unavailability.
- Parker moved to dismiss for violation of the statutory speedy-trial deadlines (R.C. 2945.71 et seq.), arguing triple-count credit applied and the State took too long to bring him to trial.
- After hearings the trial court: denied the speedy-trial motion, granted the forfeiture motion admitting J.P.’s hearsay statements, conducted trial (jury convicted on all counts), and sentenced Parker to consecutive terms totaling 16 years.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's (State) Argument | Defendant's (Parker) Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Speedy-trial statutory violation | New indictments reset the speedy-trial clock because they charged different incidents or arose from facts the State only later discovered; tolling events (motions/continuances) made trial timely. | Triple-count (3-for-1) applies during Parker’s incarceration and, when properly counted from initial arrest dates, the State exceeded statutory limits. | Court: Clock reset when later indictments added separate-incident charges; after accounting for tolling (including Parker’s motion), trial occurred within 270 days. Motion denied. |
| Forfeiture by wrongdoing / admission of victim hearsay | Parker’s repeated jail calls, threats, and conduct caused J.P. to be unavailable; State made reasonable, good-faith efforts to secure her attendance, so Evid.R. 804(B)(6) permits admission. | State did not make adequate efforts to secure J.P.’s attendance for the specific trial date (only a late subpoena attempt); hearsay should be excluded under Confrontation Clause. | Court: State proved by preponderance that Parker’s wrongdoing caused victim unavailability and that the State made reasonable efforts; hearsay admissible under forfeiture doctrine. |
| Mistrial based on juror comment that defendant "must be in custody" | Passing comment did not deprive Parker of a fair trial; voir dire and curative instructions preserved impartiality. | Comment prejudiced jury; trial court should have declared mistrial rather than individually voir-dire jurors without defense input. | Court: No abuse of discretion denying mistrial; jurors said they could remain impartial and instructions cured any prejudice. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Baker, 78 Ohio St.3d 108 (1997) (subsequent indictment resets speedy-trial clock when new charges arise from different facts or facts unknown at original indictment)
- State v. Sanchez, 110 Ohio St.3d 274 (2006) (triple-count credit applies only when defendant is held solely on the pending charge)
- State v. McKelton, 148 Ohio St.3d 261 (2016) (explaining forfeiture-by-wrongdoing standard under Evid.R. 804(B)(6))
- State v. Keairns, 9 Ohio St.3d 228 (1984) (State must show reasonable, good-faith efforts to procure witness attendance to prove unavailability)
- State v. Bonarrigo, 62 Ohio St.2d 7 (1980) (time elapsing under municipal complaint is deducted/tolled when felony later filed)
- Treesh v. State, 90 Ohio St.3d 460 (2001) (trial court’s discretion on mistrial; mistrial warranted only when fair trial impossible)
- Giles v. California, 554 U.S. 353 (2008) (forfeiture-by-wrongdoing doctrine and confrontation issues)
- Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 (1878) (foundational forfeiture principle)