State v. Spencer
2017 Ohio 59
Ohio Ct. App.2017Background
- Scott W. Spencer, an attorney, was indicted for unlawful sexual conduct with a minor; on the morning of the April 14, 2015 trial he submitted an Affidavit of Disqualification showing an altered hearing date and caused the trial to be continued. The jury venire was dismissed and compensated $1,175.00.
- Spencer was later indicted for forgery based on creating/presenting the altered affidavit to obtain a continuance; he was tried and convicted of forgery (R.C. 2913.31(A)(3)).
- Spencer claimed he served a speedy-trial demand earlier (handwritten note claiming an August 3, 2015 demand), but the court found the first proper request was December 1, 2015; trial began April 14, 2016.
- At trial the court limited counsel to ten minutes each for voir dire; defense did not request additional time on the record.
- The court sentenced Spencer to the maximum 12 months and ordered restitution of $1,175 for the jury venire costs. Spencer appealed, raising five assignments of error (speedy trial; voir dire limits; sufficiency of evidence; excessive sentence; restitution).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Spencer) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Speedy-trial under R.C. 2941.401 | No violation; first proper demand was Dec. 1, 2015 | Earlier demand was made Aug. 3, 2015 (handwritten note); dismissal required if 180 days elapsed | Court: Dec. 1, 2015 was first proper demand; trial within 180 days; no violation; assignment overruled |
| Voir dire time limit | Ten minutes per side was reasonable; court retains discretion | Ten-minute limit was arbitrary and inhibited meaningful voir dire | Court: no abuse of discretion; defense did not request more time; assignment overruled |
| Sufficiency of evidence for forgery (R.C. 2913.31(A)(3)) | Presenting a falsely dated, notarized affidavit to obtain continuance is forgery/uttering | Altered affidavit is still the document it purports to be; false statement alone may be falsification, not forgery | Court: following Ferrette, false/authenticity-altering presentation supports forgery conviction; evidence sufficient; assignment overruled |
| Sentence (maximum 12 months) | Sentence justified by criminal history, lack of remorse, fraud on the court, and professional misconduct | Maximum sentence was excessive / arbitrary | Court: sentencing factors considered; no clear and convincing basis to overturn; assignment overruled |
| Restitution for jury venire costs ($1,175) | Costs were a direct/proximate result of Spencer's forgery-caused continuance | Jurors were also called for a different case; costs not solely Spencer's responsibility | Court: costs resulted proximately from Spencer's conduct; restitution proper; assignment overruled |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (standard for sufficiency review)
- State v. Ferrette, 18 Ohio St.3d 106 (presentation of altered instrument can constitute forgery/uttering)
- State v. Hairston, 101 Ohio St.3d 308 (inmate speedy-trial demand under R.C. 2941.401)
- State v. Kalish, 120 Ohio St.3d 23 (formerly controlling framework for appellate review of felony sentences)
- State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516 (applies R.C. 2953.08 standard for appellate review of felony sentences)
- State v. Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d 209 (sentence review principles under R.C. 2953.08)
- State v. Mathis, 109 Ohio St.3d 54 (requirement to consider R.C. 2929.11/2929.12 factors)
- Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (definition of clear and convincing evidence)