State v. Walls
104 N.E.3d 280
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- In June–July 2013 Erie County Children’s Services removed two minor children of Michael Walls after allegations of failure to attend school, confinement, and sexual abuse; Walls transported the children to Florida and was arrested when authorities located the family there.
- Dr. Randall Schlievert (child-abuse pediatrician) examined the children on August 1, 2013 and produced a brief written report summarizing interviews but explicitly deferred forensic exams and did not set forth the substantive opinions he later gave at trial.
- The State disclosed Dr. Schlievert’s short written report before trial but in opening announced it would elicit broader expert testimony (grooming, delayed disclosure, recantation, and diagnostic impressions) not disclosed in the report. Defense objected under Crim.R. 16(K).
- At trial the jury convicted Walls of multiple rape and pandering/obscenity-related counts; the court admitted Dr. Schlievert’s expanded testimony and Walls was later sentenced. Walls appealed raising several issues, principally the Rule 16(K) expert-report violation.
- The Sixth District held that Crim.R. 16(K) requires exclusion of expert testimony when the expert’s written report was not disclosed as required; admitting Dr. Schlievert’s undisclosed opinions was reversible error because the testimony was important, buttressed the victim’s credibility, and prejudiced Walls. The case is remanded for a new trial; other assignments of error were rejected.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Walls) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court erred by permitting expert testimony that exceeded the written report required by Crim.R. 16(K) | State: Court may fashion a sanction and should exercise discretion; mild reprimand sufficed and nondisclosure was not willful or prejudicial | Walls: Testimony exceeded written report; Rule 16(K) mandates exclusion of undisclosed expert opinions and prejudiced defense | Held: Crim.R. 16(K) unambiguously mandates exclusion of expert testimony not disclosed in required written report; admission of Dr. Schlievert’s undisclosed opinions was reversible error and prejudicial — new trial ordered |
| Whether the judge erred by instructing a witness (Me.W.) how to answer to avoid inadmissible juvenile-record testimony | State: Court acted to prevent inadmissible evidence and protect the record | Walls: Instruction compromised judicial impartiality and appearance of integrity; counsel could not hear to object | Held: No reversible error — judge aimed to avoid inadmissible evidence, response was vague, occurred outside jury presence, and no prejudice shown |
| Whether prior defense counsel’s testimony violated attorney-client privilege | State: Prior counsel’s identity and fact he contacted Walls are permissible; privilege protects substance not fact of communication | Walls: Testimony implicates privileged communications from representation period | Held: No error — client identity and fact of contact are not privileged; substantive privileged content was excluded when appropriate |
| Whether evidence was sufficient to support pandering obscenity involving a minor (R.C. 2907.321(A)(3)) absent proof of created/recorded materials | State: Conduct (directing sexual acts before an audience) satisfied "obscene performance" element without production of photos/videos | Walls: Conviction requires proof that materials (photos/videos) were created or produced | Held: No error — statute’s definition of "performance" covers exhibitions before an audience; creation of materials is not an essential element; but conviction must nonetheless be retried because of expert-testimony error |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Morris, 141 Ohio St.3d 399 (Ohio 2014) (harmless-error framework requires excising improper evidence and assessing whether error was prejudicial)
- State v. Wiles, 59 Ohio St.3d 71 (Ohio 1991) (nondisclosure under Crim.R.16 not reversible absent willfulness, prejudice, and showing foreknowledge would have aided defense)
- State v. Holt, 17 Ohio St.2d 81 (Ohio 1969) (weight of an expert’s prestige can unduly influence a jury)
- Lemley v. Kaiser, 6 Ohio St.3d 258 (Ohio 1983) (burden to invoke attorney-client privilege rests with the party seeking exclusion)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-prong standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)