State v. Parris, 2014 Ohio 4863

In Sept. 2011 Phil Masterson was assaulted and later died; Cameron Parris accompanied the principal actor (Brody) and had knowledge of events before and after the killing.
On Sept. 13, 2011 Parris’s attorney sent a written proffer seeking immunity in exchange for Parris’s "full honest disclosure;" the prosecutor signed the proffer.
Parris gave a taped interview on Sept. 14, 2011 and was later told the immunity agreement was rescinded for lack of full disclosure; he was not called before the grand jury.
Brody was later prosecuted, pleaded guilty, and was sentenced; information from Parris’s interview was used against Brody.
In Nov. 2012 Parris was indicted on multiple counts (tampering with evidence, obstructing justice, failure to report a death, falsification). Parris moved to dismiss and for specific performance enforcing the non‑prosecution agreement.
The trial court found the parties had an agreement and that the state failed to prove by a preponderance that Parris materially breached it; the court dismissed counts 1–7 but left count 8. The state appealed. The appellate court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Parris)	Held
Whether Parris’s obligation to provide a “full honest disclosure” was a condition precedent that he failed to perform, allowing the state to rescind the immunity	Parris lied/omitted material facts during the taped interview; thus he did not satisfy the condition precedent and the state could terminate the agreement	Parris performed by providing substantial, truthful, incriminating information; omissions were minor or cumulative and did not defeat the bargain	The court held the phrase means complete and truthful disclosure; Parris provided substantial useful information and did not fail the condition precedent
Whether any breach by Parris was material so as to relieve the state of its obligation (i.e., justify rescission and prosecution)	Parris’s omissions and misstatements materially impaired his usefulness and deprived the state of the benefit of the bargain	Any omissions were not intentional or material; the state obtained the benefit of the bargain and used Parris’s information against Brody	The court held the state failed to prove a material breach by a preponderance; omissions were minor, cumulative, or already known, so the agreement must be enforced

Alexander v. Buckeye Pipe Line Co., 53 Ohio St.2d 241 (contract terms given plain and ordinary meaning)
Inland Refuse Transfer Co. v. Browning-Ferris Industries of Ohio, Inc., 15 Ohio St.3d 321 (extrinsic evidence considered when contract ambiguous)
Kelly v. Medical Life Ins. Co., 31 Ohio St.3d 130 (circumstances may give contract language special meaning)
Ohio Bell Tel. Co. v. PUCO, 64 Ohio St.3d 145 (contract construction is a matter of law reviewed de novo)
State v. Small, 41 Ohio App.3d 252 (government relieved of reciprocal obligations if witness fails to fulfill agreement)
United States v. Fitch, 964 F.2d 571 (materiality of breach depends in part on incriminating nature of information)
United States v. Castaneda, 162 F.3d 832 (omissions may be immaterial if government still receives benefit of bargain)
State v. Williams, 23 Ohio St.3d 16 (appellate review accepts trial court findings supported by competent, credible evidence)