STATE OF OHIO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WILLADEAN BRANAM, Defendant-Appellee.
APPEAL NOS. C-190349, C-190350, C-190351, C-190352, C-190353
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO
May 27, 2020
2020-Ohio-3101
MYERS, Judge.
TRIAL NOS. 19TRD-541(A), 19CRB-60(A), 19CRB-60(B), 19CRB-60(C), 19TRD-541(B)
OPINION.
Criminal Appeals From: Hamilton County Municipal Court
Judgments Appealed From Are: Reversed and Cause Remanded
Date of Judgment Entry on Appeal: May 27, 2020
Paula Boggs Muething, City Solicitor, William T. Horsley, Interim City Prosecutor, and Jon Vogt, Appellate Director, for Plaintiff-Appellant,
Raymond T. Faller, Hamilton County Public Defender, and David Hoffmann, Assistant Public Defender, for Defendant-Appellee.
{¶1} The state of Ohio appeals the judgments of the Hamilton County Municipal Court dismissing five charges against Willadean Branam as a sanction for the state‘s failure to provide a video in discovery. Because the trial court abused its discretion by failing to consider the appropriate factors before imposing dismissal as a sanction for the discovery violation, we reverse.
{¶2} On January 1, 2019, Branam was charged with obstructing official business, spitting in a public place, possession of marijuana, leaving a curb without proper signaling, and a license-plate violation. On January 29, Branam filed a demand for discovery.
{¶3} In its written response filed on February 3, the state provided all that Branam had requested except for videos captured by police body-worn cameras (“BWC“) and from mobile video recorders (“MVR“) in police cruisers. The state indicated that “BWC video will be forwarded upon receipt” and “MVR Video ordered, will forward upon receipt, if available.”
{¶4} On February 14, Branam filed a motion asking the court to extend the deadline for her to file a motion to suppress. She asserted that she was still waiting for the state to produce BWC and MVR videos, which might form the basis of a potential motion to suppress.
{¶5} At a hearing on April 12, the court ordered the state to provide the recordings within ten days. On the same day, Branam served upon the state a motion to compel discovery.1
{¶6} The case was set for trial and for hearing on the motion to compel on May 6, and on that day, defense counsel indicated that the state had provided BWC video, but not MVR video. Counsel stated that the charges stemmed from a traffic
{¶7} In a single assignment of error, the state argues that the trial court erred by dismissing the charges. The state contends that the court abused its discretion by failing to consider the circumstances surrounding the discovery violation and by failing to consider whether a less restrictive sanction would have accomplished the purposes of discovery.
{¶8}
{¶9} In exercising its discretion in imposing a sanction for a discovery violation, the court must consider (1) whether the failure to disclose was a willful
{¶10} In this case, the record does not demonstrate that the court considered the proper factors before it imposed the harshest sanction possible for the state‘s discovery violation. Therefore, we hold that the trial court abused its discretion in dismissing the charges against Branam. See Darmond at ¶ 39; Williams at ¶ 12. The state‘s sole assignment of error is sustained.
{¶11} We reverse the judgments of the trial court dismissing the charges, and remand the cause for the court to consider the proper factors and then impose any appropriate sanction, including dismissal, consistent with law and this opinion.
Judgments reversed and cause remanded.
MOCK, P.J., and ZAYAS, J., concur.
Please note:
The court has recorded its own entry this date.