State v. Vu
2012 Ohio 746
Ohio Ct. App.2012Background
- Vu and Lai Vu were implicated in a large-scale marijuana operation investigated by Medway Drug Enforcement Agency, with warrants executed on multiple residences in Medina County on June 15, 2006.
- Over 23,000 grams of marijuana were seized from eight locations, and the searches produced documents tying participants to the conspiracy.
- Vu was indicted for possession of marijuana and later charged with conspiracy, complicity, illegal cultivation, and related forfeiture specifications; the State consolidated Vu’s case with her husband’s.
- Vu was convicted by a jury on eight counts; the court sentenced her to eight years in prison and later conducted a remand-related resentencing for forfeiture issues.
- Vu appealed raising fourteen assignments of error, including speedy-trial claims, sufficiency of the indictment, suppression challenges, evidentiary and procedural issues, and forfeiture findings, which this court denied on all points.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Speedy-trial violation claim | Vu claims violation of R.C. 2945.71 by delayed trial | Vu argues time tolled but not properly | No speedy-trial violation; tolling events and continuances supported the schedule |
| Defective conspiracy indictment | Indictment failed to allege overt acts or included protected conduct | Indictment identified overt acts and was not prejudicial | Indictment valid; conspiracy convictions not void for lack of overt-act specificity |
| Crim.R. 7(D) amendment of count one | Amendment changed the factual specificity from 40,300 g to general amount | Amendment proper; did not prejudice Vu | Crim.R. 7(D) amendment proper; no prejudice shown |
| Standing to suppress evidence | Vu lacked Fourth Amendment standing to challenge several warrants | State challenged standing; Vu had no privacy interest in some locations | Vu lacked standing to challenge certain searches; suppression affirmed only on standing grounds in those locations |
| Disclosure of informants (confidential informants) | State failed to disclose informant identities, impacting defense | Informants’ identities not material; evidence independent of informants | No disclosure required; informants’ information not essential to defense |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Childs, 88 Ohio St.3d 194 (2000) (over acts required for conspiracy indictment; standard syllabus cited)
- State v. Murray, 2004-Ohio-4966 (2004) (tolling events during pretrial motions pertinent to speedy-trial analysis)
- State v. Dudukovich, 2006-Ohio-1309 (2006) (Crim.R. 7(D) amendment requires no prejudice to defendant)
- State v. Jones, 2009-Ohio-670 (2009) (forfeiture burdens and standard of review; former R.C. 2925.42 interpretations)
- State v. Smith, 2003-Ohio-1306 (2003) (informant-disclosure balancing; case law on disclosure limits)
- State v. Williams, 4 Ohio St.3d 74 (1983) (informant discloseability; confrontation rights under Williams framework)