2018 Ohio 2597
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- Appellant Lawrence P. Rhea was cited May 26, 2017 for driving while his license was suspended (R.C. 4510.11). He was fined $100 after a bench trial in Erie County Municipal Court.
- Arraignment was continued; a pretrial set trial for August 4, 2017. Appellant failed to appear on that date; counsel filed a notice of appearance and requested discovery the morning of trial.
- The state filed discovery and sought leave to file a motion to suppress, but the trial court denied leave and continued trial to August 7, 2017. Appellant again sought a continuance and orally moved in limine to exclude evidence challenging the traffic stop; both requests were denied.
- The municipal court convicted Rhea after a bench trial and imposed the fine and costs; execution was stayed pending appeal.
- On appeal, Rhea challenged (1) denial of leave to file an untimely motion to suppress, (2) denial of additional time to file a suppression motion, and (3) denial of his oral motion in limine to exclude evidence about the suspended license.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Rhea) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court abused discretion in denying leave to file an untimely motion to suppress | Leave properly denied because Crim.R. 12(D) deadlines govern; state had interest in finality | Denial was unjust because discovery was produced the morning of trial and that impeded filing a timely suppression motion | No abuse of discretion; denial affirmed |
| Whether production of discovery on morning of trial tolled Crim.R. 12(D) deadlines | Deadlines not tolled; defendant’s late counsel appearance caused delay | Discovery production made it impossible to file a timely motion to suppress | Court rejected tolling; defendant’s conduct caused the delay |
| Whether court could review merits of suppression without having considered probable cause/basis for stop | Court did not rule on merits because it denied leave to file; thus merits not reached | Claim that conviction rests on unlawfully denied suppression review | Court declined to review suppression merits because it never considered them |
| Whether oral motion in limine to exclude stop evidence was properly denied | Motion in limine improperly attempted to litigate suppression issue outside proper pretrial motion timetable | Motion was necessary to prevent admission of prejudicial evidence about suspension | Denied: in substance it sought suppression relief and was untimely; denial not error |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Phillips, 74 Ohio St.3d 72 (1995) (explaining Crim.R. 12(D) timing and its effect on appeal rights)
- State v. Brady, 119 Ohio St.3d 375 (2008) (defining abuse of discretion standard)