State v. Ross
2012 Ohio 4977
Ohio Ct. App.2012Background
- Ross was charged with assault under R.C. 2903.13(A) following a July 20, 2011 incident at a Greene County convenience store.
- Security footage of the incident was recorded by the store but never provided to Ross; the sheriff’s office did not possess a copy.
- Ross demanded discovery preserving and producing the video; a continuance was requested in November 2011.
- The State and police did not preserve or disclose the footage; Ross moved to dismiss in November 2011, which the court later overruled.
- Ross pled no contest to the assault, was sentenced to probation, a fine, and suspended jail time, and appealed the ruling on the dismissal Motion.
- The trial court affirmed the non-dismissal ruling, and Ross appeals arguing due process was violated by failure to preserve exculpatory video.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether failure to preserve exculpatory video violated due process | Ross | Ross claims preservation of exculpatory video violated due process | No due process violation; evidence not proved exculpatory or in State's possession |
| Whether the video was material exculpatory evidence | Ross | Video could be potentially useful but not necessarily exculpatory | Video considered materially exculpatory for defense preparation under Crim.R.16(B) despite destruction |
| Crim.R. 16 duty to disclose material evidence | State | State had no possession; not obliged to produce | Crim.R.16(B) requires disclosure of material evidence reasonably available to the state; failure to preserve can violate due process |
| Bad faith standard for sanctions for discovery violations | State acted in bad faith | No bad faith shown | No bad faith; deputy's negligence at most; sanction not an abuse of discretion |
| Whether the trial court abused discretion by overruling motion to dismiss | Ross | Sanction appropriate given discovery issues | No abuse of discretion; continuance would not cure prejudice; ruling affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Grigley, 2007-Ohio-3159 (Ohio App. 2d Dist. 2007) (private entity video; state not required to possess if not in its control; discovery vs. subpoena nuances)
- State v. Durnwald, 2005-Ohio-4867 (Ohio App. 6th Dist. 2005) (bad faith standard for discovery failures; implied requirement of deceitful conduct)
- Arizona v. Youngblood, 488 U.S. 51 (U.S. 1988) (due process for destruction of potentially useful evidence; materiality requires more than negligence)
- State v. Combs, 2006-Ohio-7088 (Ohio App. 2d Dist. 2006) (distinguishes subpoena duces tecum from discovery obligations; possession not shown)
- State v. Parson, 453 N.E.2d 689 (Ohio 1983) (three-factor test for sanctions: reason for violation, prejudice, cure feasibility)