State v. Terry
2016 Ohio 3484
Ohio Ct. App.2016Background
- Just after midnight July 5, 2014, Huber Heights Officer Robert Bluma observed a red pickup in Dayton driving erratically and pulling into a restaurant parking lot; he followed and approached the vehicle concerned about intoxication or a possible domestic dispute.
- Bluma and Officer Fosnight questioned driver Patrick O’Connell and passenger Amanda Terry; Terry was loudly yelling, and Bluma observed an open 24 oz. beer and signs of intoxication.
- After O’Connell stepped out, Bluma spoke with him while Terry repeatedly yelled and interfered; Bluma ordered Terry to calm down and later to stay by his cruiser.
- While Bluma was preparing a report and after Terry said she would get in her truck and leave, she walked toward the truck despite orders to stop; Bluma grabbed her wrist and placed her under arrest for obstructing official business; Terry resisted, requiring force and later transfer to Dayton officers.
- Terry was charged with obstructing official business (R.C. 2921.31) and resisting arrest (R.C. 2921.33); she moved to suppress and for acquittal, was convicted after a bench trial, and appealed.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Terry's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether suppression is an available remedy for an arrest in violation of R.C. 2935.03 (officer outside territorial jurisdiction) | Suppression not available; violation of R.C. 2935.03 does not implicate constitutional protections and exclusionary rule is not a remedy | Arrest invalid because Bluma (a Huber Heights officer) lacked territorial authority in Dayton, so evidence/charges should be dismissed or suppressed | Suppression not a remedy for R.C. 2935.03 violations; no suppressible evidence here; assignment overruled |
| Sufficiency of evidence for obstructing official business (intent and hampering element) | Evidence (yelling, ignoring orders, walking toward truck) supports that Terry acted with purpose to obstruct and hampered the investigation | Terry lacked intent to obstruct; walking away insufficient | Evidence sufficient: court found purposeful conduct and hampering; conviction upheld |
| Sufficiency of evidence for resisting arrest (lawfulness of arrest) | Arrest lawful as officers had reasonable grounds; additionally Dayton officers had jurisdiction and Terry resisted them | Arrest was unlawful (implicit R.C. 2935.03 argument) so resisting-arrest cannot stand | Conviction upheld: even if Bluma lacked statutory authority, Dayton officers had authority and Terry actively resisted them |
| Admissibility of testimony and in-cruiser video (prejudice/relevance) | Testimony about Terry’s disruptive yelling and cruiser video were relevant and not unfairly prejudicial | Officer’s pejorative description and post-arrest video were unfairly prejudicial and irrelevant to pre-arrest conduct | No abuse of discretion; plain-error not shown; evidence admissible (bench trial presumption that judge considered only competent evidence) |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Leak, 145 Ohio St.3d 165 (restate standards for appellate review of suppression rulings)
- State v. Burnside, 100 Ohio St.3d 152 (trial court as trier of fact on suppression; appellate review mixed question)
- City of Kettering v. Hollen, 64 Ohio St.2d 232 (violation of R.C. 2935.03 not a basis for exclusionary rule)
- State v. Weideman, 94 Ohio St.3d 501 (seizure outside territorial limits not per se unreasonable under Fourth Amendment)
- State v. Jones, 121 Ohio St.3d 103 (no remedy available for R.C. 2935.03 violation)
- State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (standard for sufficiency review)
- State v. Wiles, 59 Ohio St.3d 71 (presumption that trial judge in bench trial considers only relevant and competent evidence)