State v. Straley (Slip Opinion)
139 Ohio St. 3d 339
| Ohio | 2014Background
- On April 18, 2011, plain‑clothes narcotics detectives stopped Amanda Straley for erratic driving; they smelled alcohol, she had slurred speech, and she could not produce a license.
- Officers did not immediately charge her; while waiting for a ride decision, Straley stepped away, pulled her pants down, and urinated near a building.
- After she returned, an officer found a clear cellophane baggie covered with urine containing what appeared to be crack cocaine where she had urinated.
- Straley was indicted on trafficking and possession (felony 5) and tampering with evidence (felony 3, R.C. 2921.12(A)(1)); she pled no contest to trafficking and possession, and the tampering count went to jury trial.
- A jury convicted her of tampering; the Second District Court of Appeals reversed, concluding the State failed to prove the baggie related to an ongoing or likely investigation. The Supreme Court of Ohio granted review on a certified conflict with the Ninth District.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether R.C. 2921.12(A)(1) requires that the item tampered with relate to the investigation the defendant knew was ongoing or likely | The State: an investigation may expand; evidence discovered during an investigation falls within the statute even if not tied to the officer’s initial investigatory purpose | Straley: statute requires that the tampered item be related to an ongoing or likely investigation; otherwise the statute is ambiguous and must be construed for the accused | Held: Yes. The statute requires proof the defendant intended to impair evidence that related to the particular investigation the defendant knew was ongoing or likely to be instituted. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Bass, 404 U.S. 336 (discussing rule of lenity and criminal statute ambiguity)
- United States v. Lanier, 520 U.S. 259 (rule of lenity construes ambiguous criminal statutes narrowly)
- State v. Young, 62 Ohio St.2d 370 (criminal statutes construed in favor of defendant when ambiguous)
- State v. Malone, 121 Ohio St.3d 244 (statutory interpretation limiting reach of criminal statutes to their plain language)
- State v. Skorvanek, 182 Ohio App.3d 615 (9th Dist.) (holding tampering conviction permissible where defendant discarded contraband during a traffic stop because of evidentiary value)