State v. Thompson
2016 Ohio 4689
Ohio Ct. App.2016Background
- Police responded after a report of a possibly intoxicated driver at a fast-food restaurant; Stephen Thompson was identified as the driver and followed by officers after leaving the lot.
- Sergeant Conwill approached Thompson’s vehicle in a driveway; Trooper McClintock drew his weapon when the passenger door opened.
- Thompson then accelerated, drove through a yard toward the road, fishtailed toward Trooper McClintock (who feared being struck), and McClintock fired three rounds; Thompson crashed, fled on foot, struck McClintock with a flashlight, and was tased and arrested.
- Medical testing showed a BAC of .17 and presence of marijuana; after being escorted to jail, Thompson assaulted Deputy Shelly by grabbing his throat.
- A grand jury indicted Thompson on felonious assault (one count dismissed), two counts of assault on a peace officer, obstructing official business, and two OVI counts (merged at sentencing); jury convicted on remaining counts.
- Trial court imposed consecutive felony terms producing an 8-year total; on appeal convictions were affirmed but consecutive sentences reversed for failure to make required statutory findings under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred in allowing amendment of indictment to allege venue (Wayne County) | State: amendment permissible under Crim.R. 7(D) because venue allegations do not change identity of offense | Thompson: omission of venue from grand jury presentment violated his rights | Amendment allowed; no abuse of discretion and no prejudice shown — overruled |
| Whether time limit on voir dire and failure to excuse Juror 22 violated rights | State: time limit was reasonable and applied equally | Thompson: time limit curtailed ability to probe jurors (including Juror 22) | No clear abuse of discretion; 30 minutes per side was permissible — overruled |
| Whether exclusion of defense expert testimony (Tomasheski, Hawn, Lipian) was erroneous | Thompson: experts would show lack of intent/ability to see trooper and question police conduct | State: expert opinions irrelevant, confusing, or impermissibly rely on voluntary intoxication to negate mental state | Trial court did not abuse discretion excluding Tomasheski (irrelevant) and Hawn/Lipian under Evid.R. 403(A) (prejudice/confusion; intoxication cannot negate culpable mental state) — overruled |
| Whether jury should have been instructed that victim must be acting in line of duty for peace-officer specifications | Thompson: jury must separately find victim was a peace officer acting within jurisdiction and duties | State: statutory elements and instructions given were sufficient | Any error non-prejudicial because convictions concerned officers who were on duty; no reversible error — overruled |
| Sufficiency of evidence for felonious assault (knowingly, deadly weapon) | Thompson: evidence insufficient to show he knowingly drove to cause harm or used a deadly weapon | State: testimony and circumstances showed Thompson saw officers, drove toward trooper, and vehicle is a deadly weapon when used to run someone over | Evidence sufficient: jury could find knowing conduct and that vehicle was a deadly weapon — overruled |
| Whether trial court made required findings to impose consecutive sentences | Thompson: court failed to make/find statutory R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings in hearing or entry | State (on appeal): conceded error and requested remand | Court found trial court failed to state or journal required findings; reversed consecutive sentence and remanded for proper R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) analysis — sustained |
Key Cases Cited
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (Ohio 1983) (defines abuse of discretion standard)
- Pons v. Ohio State Medical Board, 66 Ohio St.3d 619 (Ohio 1993) (appellate review limits when reviewing discretionary rulings)
- Yarbrough v. State, 95 Ohio St.3d 227 (Ohio 2002) (trial court discretion on evidentiary rulings; standard for expert evidence exclusion)
- Allen v. State, 73 Ohio St.3d 626 (Ohio 1995) (deference to trial court on admission/exclusion of evidence)
- Jenks v. State, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (Ohio 1991) (standard for sufficiency review in criminal cases)
- Thompkins v. State, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (Ohio 1997) (standard of review for sufficiency vs. manifest weight)
- Bonnell v. Ohio, 140 Ohio St.3d 209 (Ohio 2014) (trial court must make and journal R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings for consecutive sentences)
- Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (Ohio 1954) (definition of clear and convincing evidence)