State v. Thyot
105 N.E.3d 1260
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- Defendant Ernest L. Thyot was charged with OVI and driving under suspension based in part on a Thornton’s gas-station surveillance video alleged to show him operating a vehicle.
- The state sought to admit a DVD copy of store 560’s continuous-surveillance recording; Tom Tegenkamp, regional manager, testified about the system’s operation, storage practices, date/time stamp, and that recordings are kept in the ordinary course of business.
- Tegenkamp was not the person who burned the DVD, was not present when the recording occurred, and was not the custodian of the specific DVD, though he had used the system in prior investigations and supervised the store.
- Thyot moved in limine to exclude the video for lack of authentication; the municipal court granted the motion, finding the state’s witness lacked custody, personal knowledge of the recording, and the ability to vouch that the DVD fairly and accurately depicted events.
- The state appealed under R.C. 2945.67/Crim.R. 12(K), arguing the video was properly authenticated under the silent-witness theory and as a business record; the court of appeals reversed and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the surveillance video was authenticated and admissible | Video authenticated by Tegenkamp’s testimony about the surveillance system, storage, date/time stamp, and ordinary-course business practices (silent-witness/business-records). | Video inadmissible because witness was not the custodian, did not create or burn the DVD, lacked personal knowledge of the recording’s creation or accuracy. | The court held the state met the low prima-facie authentication burden under Evid.R. 901 via the silent-witness theory and Evid.R. 803(6) as a business record; defects affect weight, not admissibility. |
| Whether the trial court’s grant of the motion in limine was appealable by the state | The order effectively suppressed evidence and thus was a final, appealable order under R.C. 2945.67/Crim.R.12(K). | Motion in limine rulings are interlocutory and not appealable; the state’s certification was challenged. | The court treated the ruling as a functional suppression order and allowed interlocutory appeal; the prosecutor’s Crim.R.12(K) certification is not subject to appellate review. |
Key Cases Cited
- Midland Steel Prod. Co. v. U.A.W. Local 486, 61 Ohio St.3d 121 (1991) (describes pictorial-testimony and silent-witness theories for photographic/video evidence)
- State v. Pickens, 141 Ohio St.3d 462 (2014) (no expert required to establish reliability of surveillance system under silent-witness theory)
- State v. Davidson, 17 Ohio St.3d 132 (1985) (motion that effectively suppresses state’s evidence is appealable under R.C. 2945.67)
- State v. Bertram, 80 Ohio St.3d 281 (1997) (appellate courts may not review the prosecutor’s Crim.R.12(K) certification merits)
- State v. Burnside, 100 Ohio St.3d 152 (2003) (standard of review for mixed questions of law and fact on suppression-type rulings)