State v. Peterson, 2023 Ohio 3544

On Aug. 11, 2020, an Ohio State Highway Patrol trooper stopped a white minivan on I-75 after observing lane changes and a failure to signal; the trooper also detected the odor of burnt marijuana, the driver fled on foot, and officers later found two bags containing fentanyl and acetyl fentanyl (>100 grams).
Peterson was indicted for first-degree trafficking and possession of a fentanyl-related compound (with major-drug-offender specifications) and two counts of resisting arrest (misdemeanors); he pleaded no contest to the misdemeanors and proceeded to trial on the drug charges.
Peterson moved to suppress evidence, arguing the traffic stop lacked reasonable, articulable suspicion and that the dashcam did not show traffic violations; the trial court denied suppression, finding de minimis traffic violations justified the stop.
At trial, the jury convicted Peterson of trafficking and possession; the court merged counts and sentenced him to an indefinite 15–20.5 year term (plus concurrent misdemeanor time).
On appeal Peterson raised: (1) suppression error, (2) denial of his request for self-representation, (3) denial of funds for a private investigator, and (4) cumulative error; the Sixth District affirmed on all grounds.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
1) Motion to suppress: Was the traffic stop unreasonable?	Peterson: dashcam shows lawful lane changes and adequate space; no basis for stop.	State: trooper observed lane-change that forced another vehicle to brake and failure to signal 100 ft — probable cause for traffic violations.	Denied — trooper’s observations constituted probable cause; suppression denial affirmed.
2) Right to self-representation: Did court err in refusing his request?	Peterson: he clearly and timely asked to proceed pro se and would have made different strategic choices.	State: even if request was made earlier, Peterson later acquiesced in counsel and abandoned the request.	Denied — record shows he abandoned the request; no Sixth Amendment violation.
3) Funds for private investigator: Was denial of funds a due-process error?	Peterson: needed investigator to locate renter and a seller in Bowling Green; denial prejudiced defense.	State: Peterson failed to make the particularized showing required for court-funded investigative assistance.	Denied — no particularized showing of need; trial court did not abuse discretion.
4) Cumulative error: Do cumulative errors warrant reversal?	Peterson: multiple trial errors cumulatively denied a fair trial.	State: no individual errors found, so cumulative-error doctrine does not apply.	Denied — no individual errors established; cumulative-error claim fails.

Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806 (traffic stop is reasonable where officer has probable cause to believe a traffic violation occurred)
State v. Burnside, 100 Ohio St.3d 152 (standard of review for suppression: trial court finds facts; appellate court reviews legal issues de novo)
State v. Codeluppi, 139 Ohio St.3d 165 (de novo review of whether facts satisfy legal standard on suppression)
Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U.S. 68 (due process may require state-funded expert assistance for indigent defendants in limited circumstances)
State v. Mason, 82 Ohio St.3d 144 (state-funded expert/investigator requires particularized showing of likely assistance and risk of unfair trial)
State v. Obermiller, 147 Ohio St.3d 175 (defendant has right to self-representation but may abandon that right by acquiescing in counsel)