State v. Truckey
130 N.E.3d 990
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- On Sept. 11, 2016, a high-speed ATV pursuit led to the ATV striking Sgt. James Truckey’s cruiser; the ATV occupants were Eric Platt (driver) and Edward Dirrigl (passenger).
- Patrolman McCracken (Jefferson Village PD) pursued and recorded the incident on his body camera; Truckey and Deputy Mullett responded and helped detain the suspects.
- After Dirrigl was subdued and handcuffed, Truckey arrived and struck Dirrigl, causing a severe cut and broken nose; the body-cam captured the assault.
- McCracken provided Truckey a copy of the body-cam video and two taser cartridges recovered at the scene; Truckey took the copy home and did not immediately submit the copy or cartridges into evidence.
- A grand jury indicted Truckey on multiple counts including felonious assault, tampering with records, tampering with evidence, and dereliction of duty; after trial he was convicted of assault (lesser included), tampering with records (one count), tampering with evidence, and two derelictions of duty; some counts were dismissed or resulted in mistrial.
- On appeal the court affirmed the assault conviction but reversed the convictions for tampering with evidence, tampering with records, and dereliction of duty, and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Truckey's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for tampering with evidence (R.C. 2921.12) | Truckey removed evidence (copy of body-cam) from department custody, satisfying actus and showing intent to impair availability | Truckey had a copy but did not conceal it; department and multiple officers knew he had it; no evidence he intended to impair availability | Reversed — insufficient evidence of purpose to impair availability; mere removal of a copy without concealment or deceptive intent insufficient |
| Sufficiency of evidence for tampering with records (R.C. 2913.42) | Taking the video and failing to place it into evidence amounted to removing/altering a record with intent to defraud | No evidence of deception or fraud; multiple officers knew of the copy; original was on department server and other copies existed | Reversed — insufficient evidence of purpose to defraud; elements not proven |
| Sufficiency of evidence for dereliction of duty (R.C. 2921.44) | Dereliction premised on violation of tampering statutes (i.e., failure to perform lawful duty) | No lawful duty identified separate from tampering counts; since tampering convictions fail, dereliction lacks support | Reversed — unsupported because underlying tampering convictions lacked sufficient evidence |
| Admissibility of department use-of-force policy and expert testimony | Policy and training are relevant to assess an officer’s conduct; expert may testify on training/practice but not legal ultimate conclusion on reasonableness | Allowing policy evidence risks trying officer for policy violations; defense expert should be allowed to opine whether force was reasonable | Policy evidence admissible; defense expert may testify about training/practice but not give ultimate legal conclusion; conviction for assault upheld on manifest weight based on body-cam |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (1991) (standard for sufficiency review)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (rational trier of fact standard for sufficiency)
- State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (1997) (manifest-weight review and "thirteenth juror" standard)
- State v. Nields, 93 Ohio St.3d 6 (2001) (substantial-evidence requirement in manifest-weight analysis)
- Hubbard v. Gross, [citation="199 F. App'x 433"] (6th Cir. 2006) (expert testimony on reasonableness of force may be excluded as unnecessary or as legal conclusion)