State v. Thacker, 2020 Ohio 1318

Background

Domestic-violence civil protection order issued Oct. 6, 2017, served on Thacker Oct. 7, 2017; order required Thacker to vacate the home, surrender a vehicle, avoid Trese and their children, and "depart immediately" if accidental contact occurred (including on roads).
Thacker had a prior conviction for violating a protection order. On May 17, 2018 he encountered Trese and their son three times while driving, each time shouting profanities and flipping Trese off; two encounters were recorded on Trese's cellphone.
Charged June 7, 2018; indicted July 16, 2018 for menacing by stalking (nolled at trial) and violating a protection order (felony due to prior). Held in jail at times, released on bond, bond later revoked; counsel issues and competency proceedings followed.
Appointed counsel filed a suggestion of incompetency and an NGRI plea; Thacker was found incompetent Nov. 29, 2018, treated, and restored to competency Mar. 18, 2019; NGRI plea withdrawn and case set for trial May 23, 2019.
At trial the state presented Trese, their son, and an officer; jury convicted Thacker of violating the protection order and finding of prior conviction; sentence included community control and county jail time.
On appeal Thacker raised four errors: speedy-trial violation (statutory and constitutional), trial-court denial of a mistrial for late disclosure of an officer's report, insufficiency of the evidence, and manifest-weight of the evidence.

Issues

Issue	State's Argument	Thacker's Argument	Held
Speedy trial (statutory & constitutional)	Time tolled by defendant-caused delay (failure to retain counsel), competency proceedings, and defense motions; trial within tolled 270-day limit	350 days elapsed from arrest to trial so statutory and constitutional speedy-trial rights were violated	Denied. Statutory time was tolled for specified events so trial occurred within 270 days; constitutional claim fails (delay not presumptively prejudicial and delays attributable largely to defendant/competency matters)
Mistrial for late disclosure of Officer Witte report	Report was not in state file and when produced contained statements duplicative of trial testimony; no substantial prejudice	Late disclosure prejudiced defense tactics; report showed Trese did not want charges and acted at attorney's request	Denied. Court found no material prejudice because report duplicated testimony already elicited and defense theory was unchanged
Sufficiency of evidence	Recordings and eyewitness testimony established protection order, prohibited contact, and repeated, nonaccidental conduct showing recklessness	Encounters were accidental; conduct did not constitute a reckless violation of the order	Conviction upheld. Viewing evidence in state’s favor, a rational juror could find all elements beyond a reasonable doubt
Manifest weight of the evidence	Jury reasonably credited recordings and witnesses showing purposeful/reckless conduct	Testimony showed no fear and a chance encounter, so verdict is against manifest weight	Denied. Appellate court will not overturn where jury credibility determinations were reasonable; no miscarriage of justice shown

Key Cases Cited

Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (1972) (establishes four-factor balancing test for constitutional speedy trial)
Doggett v. United States, 505 U.S. 647 (1992) (delay approaching one year may be presumptively prejudicial)
State v. Taylor, 98 Ohio St.3d 27 (2002) (Ohio speedy-trial statutes must be strictly construed against the state)
State v. Sanchez, 110 Ohio St.3d 274 (2006) (directs counting days chargeable to either side in speedy-trial review)
State v. Spratz, 58 Ohio St.2d 61 (1979) (competency proceedings toll the speedy-trial period)
State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (1997) (standard for manifest-weight review)
State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (1991) (sufficiency-of-evidence standard)
State v. Triplett, 78 Ohio St.3d 566 (1997) (application of Barker framework in Ohio)