2018 Ohio 4690
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- Craig A. Thompson was convicted by a jury of complicity to commit burglary and sentenced to six years in prison; his direct appeal was previously affirmed.
- Thompson filed a pro se post-conviction petition that was denied; that denial is the subject of a pending appeal.
- Two cell phones seized by police were admitted into evidence at Thompson’s trial.
- Thompson filed a pro se motion seeking return of the two phones (to his parents), noting no forfeiture proceedings had been brought.
- The trial court denied the motion, concluding the phones might have future evidentiary value while Thompson’s post-conviction appeal was pending.
- Thompson appealed the denial; the appellate court affirmed, applying R.C. 2981.11(A)(1) and reviewing for abuse of discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Thompson) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying return of lawfully seized property | The phones may be needed as evidence if Thompson’s convictions are vacated and the case is retried; R.C. 2981.11(A)(1) permits holding property for evidentiary or other lawful purposes | The State never pursued forfeiture; phones have no evidentiary value (no calls/texts linking him) and withholding them violates his Fourth Amendment rights | Affirmed: court did not abuse its discretion — R.C. 2981.11(A)(1) allows continued custody while property may be needed as evidence given the pending post-conviction appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- (No authorities with official reporter citations appear in the opinion provided.)