State v. Thomas
2015 Ohio 415
Ohio Ct. App.2015Background
- Charged June 27, 2013 with three counts of rape and one count of kidnapping for conduct on June 28, 1993; each count included firearm specifications.
- 20-year preindictment delay argued as due process prejudice; trial denied motion to dismiss.
- DNA from the rape kit matched Thomas in 2006; victim initially waived prosecution then later agreed to assist in prosecution in 2013.
- Victim A.W. described the rape to Dr. Boes; Dr. Boes testified from medical records describing the incident.
- Jury found Thomas guilty of one rape and one kidnapping with firearm specs; sentenced to concurrent 8–25 years plus 3 years for firearm specs; classified as sexual predator.
- Appellant argues five assignments of error, including preindictment delay, Confrontation Clause, impeachment, mistrial, and sentencing under HB 86.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Preindictment delay violates due process? | Thomas argues 20-year delay prejudiced defense. | Thomas contends delay caused actual prejudice. | No reversible prejudice; motion denied. |
| Confrontation Clause issue with Dr. Boes’s reading of medical-record narrative? | State contends medical record reading is non-testimonial under 803(4). | Thomas asserts testimony is testimonial and violates confrontation. | Admissible under medical diagnosis and treatment exception; no Confrontation Clause violation. |
| Admission of police report for impeachment? | Thomas sought to impeach A.W. with prior inconsistent statements from police report. | Need to prove foundation for extrinsic impeachment. | Harmless error; exclusion did not affect substantial rights. |
| Prosecutor’s questioning allegedly shifted burden of proof? | Thomas claims questions suggested defense bears burden. | BCI testimony showed independence of testing; no shift. | No error; trial court properly instructed burden of proof. |
| Sentencing under HB 86 for pre-1996 offenses? | Thomas should be sentenced under HB 86 provisions. | HB 86 applies to more lenient terms; SB 2 provisions not applicable. | Indefinite 8–25 year sentence void; remand for resentencing under HB 86. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Luck, 15 Ohio St.3d 150 (1984) (due process requires prejudice from delay to support dismissal)
- United States v. Marion, 404 U.S. 307 (1971) (preindictment delay basis for due process inquiry)
- United States v. Lovasco, 431 U.S. 783 (1977) (due process requires balancing prejudice and reasons for delay)
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) (Confrontation Clause limits testimonial hearsay)
- State v. Stahl, 111 Ohio St.3d 186 (2006) (non-testimonial statements to medical personnel may be admitted)