Toledo v. Wyse, 2022 Ohio 1979

Background

On April 6, 2020 Malachi Wyse was arrested for allegedly violating Ohio’s COVID "stay at home" order (R.C. 3701.352). Defense sought body‑worn camera (BWC) footage and physical items (groceries, mask, gloves, receipt) claimed to show Wyse was returning from shopping.
The City identified Officer Alexander Simpson as its only intended witness and produced Simpson’s BWC footage; that video began only after Simpson placed Wyse under arrest because Simpson’s camera initially failed to record.
Defense repeatedly requested all BWC recordings and preservation/production of the seized personal property; the City asserted it produced all available BWC footage and denied seizing or booking any such personal items.
The municipal court found Wyse’s property had been seized and lost and that video and physical items were exculpatory and unique; it concluded Wyse’s due‑process rights were violated and dismissed the charge.
The City appealed. The Sixth District reversed, holding (1) officers had no constitutional duty to record the encounter so the lack of pre‑arrest video did not violate due process absent bad faith, (2) the trial court’s finding that property was seized and lost lacked evidentiary support, and (3) dismissal for discovery noncompliance was an abuse of discretion because no willfulness or bad faith by the prosecutor was shown and Crim.R.16(I) disclosure obligations were met.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Wyse)	Defendant's Argument (City)	Held
Whether failure to create/preserve BWC video violated due process	Missing pre‑arrest video was potentially or materially exculpatory and its loss deprived Wyse of due process	No constitutional duty to record; produced all available BWC; any missing non‑arresting officers’ footage would be only "potentially useful"	Court: No constitutional duty to record; under Trombetta/Youngblood only materially exculpatory evidence requires preservation and potentially useful evidence requires bad faith; no bad faith found, so no due‑process violation
Whether alleged seizure and loss of physical property (groceries, mask, receipt, gloves) required dismissal	Items were seized, lost/destroyed, and were uniquely exculpatory (showed essential activity)	City denies seizing/booking such items; record contains no evidence those items existed or were seized	Court: Trial court abused discretion in finding items seized and lost because record lacks evidence; dismissal on that ground was improper
Whether failure to disclose identities of other on‑scene officers justified dismissal	City failed to respond to supplemental discovery and withheld names/video of other officers, warranting dismissal	City named intended witness (Simpson) and orally represented no other BWC was available; Crim.R.16(I) does not require listing all on‑scene officers not intended as witnesses	Court: No willfulness or bad faith shown; prosecutor complied with Crim.R.16(I); dismissal was an excessive sanction and thus an abuse of discretion

Key Cases Cited

California v. Trombetta, 467 U.S. 479 (establishes due‑process claim where state fails to preserve materially exculpatory evidence)
Arizona v. Youngblood, 488 U.S. 51 (loss of potentially useful evidence requires bad faith to trigger due‑process violation)
United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97 (materiality standard for undisclosed/exculpatory evidence)
State v. Johnston, 39 Ohio St.3d 48 (Ohio articulation of reasonable‑probability materiality standard)
State v. Jackson, 57 Ohio St.3d 29 (mere possibility that evidence might help defense is insufficient for constitutional materiality)
State v. Durnwald, 163 Ohio App.3d 361 (definition and examples of "bad faith")
State v. Darmond, 135 Ohio St.3d 343 (purpose of discovery rules: prevent surprise and concealment of favorable evidence)
City of Lakewood v. Papadelis, 32 Ohio St.3d 1 (sanctions for discovery violations must be least severe consistent with discovery rules)
Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (abuse‑of‑discretion standard)