State v. Wigle
2011 Ohio 6239
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- April 25, 2010: Wigle called police alleging neighbor trespassed and threatened his sons; wife admitted officers to their home.
- Officers learned there was a protection order against Wigle from the Summit County Court of Common Pleas after viewing neighbor’s video of Wigle removing ornamental grass.
- Officers arrested Wigle for the protection order violation after returning to Wigle’s home and informing him of the video; Wigle resisted and became combative.
- Wigle’s son recorded portions of the arrest; Wigle was charged with violating the protection order, disorderly conduct, and resisting arrest.
- Trial: jury found Wigle not guilty of the protection-order violation but guilty of resisting arrest and disorderly conduct; sentences were concurrent.
- Wigle appeals on four assignments of error challenging closing arguments, joinder/severance, timeliness of the bill of particulars, and suppression issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Prosecutorial misconduct in closing | Wigle argues the prosecutor improperly commented on the entry and lawfulness of the entry into Wigle’s home. | Wigle contends the comments removed the State’s burden or misled the jury. | No prejudicial impact; total closing argument not reversible error. |
| Joinder and severance of charges | Crim.R. 8 joinder prejudiced Wigle by mixing charges improperly. | Joinder proper; no distinct or confusing evidence necessitates severance. | Joinder sustained; no abuse of discretion; jurors could separate issues. |
| Bill of particulars timely | Wigle needed a bill of particulars for the charges. | Motion untimely under Crim.R. 7(E) but discovery could render timely. | Untimely filing; court properly overruled. |
| Motion to suppress statements and entry | Miranda warnings and unlawful entry were grounds to suppress. | Statements were voluntary; no custodial interrogation; entry questioned but not preserved on appeal. | No custodial interrogation; statements admissible; suppression denied on entry claim. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Jones, 9th Dist. No. 24776, 2010-Ohio-351 (Ohio 2010) (prosecutorial closing argument review standard)
- State v. Smith, 14 Ohio St.3d 13 (1984) (standard for prosecutorial misconduct analysis)
- State v. Overholt, 9th Dist. No. 02CA0108-M, 2003-Ohio-3500 (Ohio 2003) (prejudice standard for misconduct effects)
- State v. Henry, 9th Dist. No. 02CA008170, 2003-Ohio-3151 (Ohio 2003) (closing arguments reviewed in context)
- State v. Sansalone, 71 Ohio App.3d 284 (1991) (definition of lawful arrest and expectations)
- State v. Vactor, 2003-Ohio-7195 (Ohio 2003) (lawful arrest requires surrounding circumstances)
- State v. Cook, 9th Dist. No. 21185, 2003-Ohio-727 (Ohio 2003) (defense witnesses credibility; jury weighing)