State v. Spangler
2017 Ohio 268
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- In July 2015 one‑year‑old M.S. was brought to the hospital with linear, parallel bruises on her face and buttocks consistent with slaps; child‑abuse pediatrician concluded injuries were abusive trauma.
- Household occupants included defendant Jaymz Spangler, the child’s mother ("Mother"), and R.H.; R.H. testified he saw Spangler strike the child and heard Spangler verbally abuse her; Spangler told police he dropped the child from a short height and later blamed R.H.
- The State charged Spangler with endangering children under R.C. 2919.22(B)(1); the jury convicted Spangler and the court sentenced him to jail time, community control, and a fine.
- At trial Mother invoked the Fifth Amendment when called by the State; the court recessed to allow the State to seek immunity but the State declined to call her and Mother’s counsel maintained she would assert the privilege to any substantive questioning.
- Defense sought to call Mother as a defense witness to elicit testimony about her mental‑health, detachment from the child, and blackouts (not direct questions about the incident) to invite the jury to infer Mother’s culpability; the court barred Mother from testifying because she intended only to assert the Fifth Amendment and her counsel represented she would not testify except to name and address.
- Spangler appealed, arguing the exclusion of Mother violated his compulsory‑process and due‑process rights; the appellate court affirmed, finding the trial court conducted a sufficient inquiry and properly excluded a witness who would only assert the privilege.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred by preventing the defense from calling Mother as a witness when she would invoke the Fifth Amendment | State: Mother legitimately asserted privilege; State would not call her after immunity inquiry so exclusion appropriate | Spangler: Excluding Mother deprived him of compulsory‑process and due‑process because she could provide exculpatory testimony about her mental health and behavior toward the child | Court: No error — record shows sufficient inquiry and objective basis for privilege; Mother would only assert the Fifth Amendment, so court properly excluded her and gave a no‑inference instruction |
Key Cases Cited
- Arnold, 147 Ohio St.3d 138 (Ohio 2016) (trial court must inquire into a witness's claim of privilege; record must reflect the inquiry)
- Hoffman v. United States, 341 U.S. 479 (U.S. 1951) (privilege extends to answers that could furnish a link in the chain of evidence; witness need not prove hazard)
- Kirk v. State, 72 Ohio St.3d 564 (Ohio 1995) (trial court may exclude a person who will not testify but intends only to assert the Fifth Amendment; jury should be instructed not to infer from absence)
- McGorray v. Sutter, 80 Ohio St. 400 (Ohio 1909) (trial judge may inquire into basis for privilege without forcing a self‑incriminating response)
- Landrum, 53 Ohio St.3d 107 (Ohio) (answers that would expose witness to criminal liability are protected by privilege)
- Apfelbaum, 445 U.S. 115 (U.S. 1980) (witness must have reasonable cause to apprehend real danger of incrimination to assert privilege)