State v. Richardson
2016 Ohio 8081
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2016Background
- In 2012 Richardson worked as a pesticide applicator for Stop One Pest Control, a company managed by Homer Fields; Richardson had no applicator or business license and had prior convictions for unlicensed application.
- Fields possessed a commercial applicator and pesticide business license when the business formed, but both licenses lapsed between Sept. 30 and Dec. 18, 2012; parties stipulated Richardson never held a license while employed at Stop One.
- An anonymous tip prompted a DOA investigation; State charged Richardson with multiple counts of acting as an unlicensed commercial applicator and not having a commercial applicator’s license (with prior conviction); trial narrowed to four counts tied to Sept. 3 and Dec. 3, 2012.
- Jury acquitted on one count (Count I) and convicted on three counts (Counts II, III, IV); court merged III and IV and sentenced Richardson to jail, probation, and suspended fines.
- Richardson raised five assignments of error on appeal: (1 & 4) denial of Crim.R. 29 / manifest-weight insufficiency; (2) admission of bank records over hearsay objection; (3) refusal to allow impeachment with a prior inconsistent document; (5) court’s in-chambers clarification to jury during deliberations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence / denial of Crim.R. 29 (Sept. 3 offense) | State: proof that Richardson applied pesticide to Pritchett’s home in September 2012 (and he admitted being there on Sept. 3) satisfied elements and timing need only be "on or about" date alleged. | Richardson: State failed to prove the offense occurred on Sept. 3 and failed to prove the substances were pesticides. | Held: Denial affirmed; stipulation that Richardson lacked a license, victim testimony, and Richardson’s admission supported conviction; exact date not essential. |
| Venue and identity of location (Dec. 3 offense) | State: Byrd’s uncontroverted testimony that residence was in Dayton established venue. | Richardson: State failed to prove venue — needed documentary evidence of annexation. | Held: Venue proven by testimony and circumstances; no documentary annexation required. |
| Admissibility/authentication of Chase bank records (business-records hearsay exception) | State: records were produced via subpoena and accompanied by a certification from Chase’s document-review specialist, satisfying Evid.R. 803(6). | Richardson: Bank statements were hearsay and lacked proper authentication under Evid.R. 803(6). | Held: Trial court did not err; subpoena plus custodian certification provided sufficient indicia of reliability and authentication. |
| Impeachment with prior inconsistent document (Def. Ex. H) | State: objected for lack of foundation and authenticity. | Richardson: sought to use Def. Ex. H to show Fields had agreement with State or inconsistent statements; argued right to impeach. | Held: Sustained objection to admitting the extrinsic document — no proper foundation (witness disclaimed knowledge/recognition), so court properly excluded it for impeachment. |
| Jury question during deliberations about who was charged (clarification vs. Allen charge) | State: brief clarification that Richardson was the sole defendant was proper. | Richardson: court should have given an Allen-style instruction or handled question differently; objection to court’s response. | Held: Court did not abuse discretion; brief clarification simply identified defendant and did not prejudice Richardson. |
Key Cases Cited
- DeHass v. State, 10 Ohio St.2d 230 (1967) (credibility assessments are for the trier of fact)
- State v. McKnight, 107 Ohio St.3d 101 (2005) (distinguishes sufficiency and manifest-weight standards)
- State v. Sellards, 17 Ohio St.3d 169 (1985) (indictment need not allege an exact date when timing is not essential)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (1983) (standard for abuse of discretion)
- State v. Hood, 135 Ohio St.3d 137 (2012) (authentication requirement for business records and Confrontation Clause concerns)
- State v. Carter, 72 Ohio St.3d 545 (1995) (trial court discretion in responding to jury requests for clarification)