STATE OF OHIO, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. CHRISTOPHER HALL, Defendant-Appellant.
APPEAL NO. C-200264; TRIAL NO. 20CRB-9624
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO
September 1, 2021
2021-Ohio-3017
CROUSE, Judge.
Criminal Appeal From: Hamilton County Municipal Court; Judgment Appealed From Is: Reversed and Cause Remanded
Raymond T. Faller, Hamilton County Public Defender, and David Hoffman, Assistant Public Defender, for Defendant-Appellant.
O P I N I O N.
{¶1} Defendant-appellant Christopher Hall appeals his conviction for domestic violence. For the reasons that follow, we reverse the trial court‘s judgment and remand the cause for a new trial.
Facts and Procedure
{¶2} On May 25, 2020, Cincinnati Police Officer Brandon Contris responded to a domestic-violence call from Hall‘s then-girlfriend, Tammie Smith. When Contris arrived on the scene, he found Smith with “red lines on her neck and markings on her head.” At trial, the parties presented two largely conflicting versions of events.
{¶3} Smith testified that Hall “snapped” after she refused to buy him marijuana. According to Smith, “we were standing outside, and he asked me to buy him a $10 bag of weed. And the next thing you know, he slammed me to the ground and started choking me and pulling my hair and threw my purse.” Smith stated, “I was [in pain]” and “I couldn‘t breathe.” She later noticed “marks” on her face and neck, as well as bruising on her right elbow.
{¶4} Hall testified in his own defense and claimed that he acted in self-defense. Hall testified that Smith reacted violently after he made a disdainful comment. According to Hall, “[Smith] started cursing at me like in front of everybody like telling me that I‘m her bitch. I am her slave. * * * [A]nd then she like – she get all up on me, and she put her hand in my face, pushed me.” Hall testified, “I pushed her away. And then she fell.” Hall stated that he pushed Smith on her chest and he denied ever choking her. Hall then continued, “And when she got up, * * * she goes to her purse and grabs a sharp object and tries to like stab me with it.” According to Hall, “I started to block her and then I walked away.” Hall testified that he walked down the street, took a “20-
{¶5} Hall was arrested later that morning and charged with one count of domestic violence, in violation of
Law and Analysis
{¶6} On appeal, Hall raises two assignments of error. First, Hall contends that his conviction for domestic violence was against the manifest weight of the evidence. Second, Hall argues that the trial court erred in ruling on several discovery violations committed by the state. We begin with the second assignment of error because we find it dispositive of this appeal.
{¶7} In his second assignment of error, Hall argues that the trial court erred when it failed to exclude photographs of the victim‘s injuries disclosed by the prosecution on the morning of trial.1
{¶9}
{¶10} When a party commits a discovery violation, the trial court may impose any sanction “it deems just under the circumstances.”
{¶11} However, a court may impose sanctions “only after inquiring into the circumstances surrounding the violation.” State v. Simmons, 2014-Ohio-3695, 19 N.E.3d 517, ¶ 42 (1st Dist.), citing Darmond at ¶ 35. When determining the appropriate sanction, a trial court must consider “(1) whether the failure to disclose was a willful violation of
{¶13} Due to the trial court‘s failure to inquire into the circumstances of the violation, it was impossible to determine an appropriate sanction. First, the record does not provide any justification or excuse for the state‘s failure to comply with the discovery request. Officer Contris testified that he photographed Smith‘s injuries on the night of the alleged assault. According to Contris, “I had [Smith] fill out a statement and took pictures. * * * And then I went down to the clerk‘s office to file a domestic violence form.” Thus, the state should have known about the photographs well in advance of trial. In the exercise of due diligence, the state should have asked Contris if he took any photographs of the alleged victim‘s injuries when it received Hall‘s discovery demand. Because the court did not inquire into the circumstances of the discovery violation, we
{¶14} Next, the record was not fully developed as to whether foreknowledge of the photographs would have benefited Hall in preparing his defense. Throughout the proceedings, Hall maintained that he pushed Smith in self-defense. Earlier knowledge of the photographs probably would not have changed his theory of defense. However, if the photographs had been turned over in a timely manner, defense counsel would have had time to examine the nature of the injuries, adequately prepare to cross-examine Smith, and perhaps, find an alternate cause for the marks and bruises.
{¶15} Finally, the record demonstrates that the photographs had a significant impact on Hall‘s case. The case amounted to little more than “he said, she said.” However, the photographs gave great credence to Smith‘s testimony. In fact, the photographs were the lynchpin of the state‘s case. In rebuttal, the state argued:
Defense counsel says it is a drunken shove and should be disorderly conduct, but the pictures show, particularly A and B, appear to show fingermarks on the neck of the victim and the defendant himself says he didn‘t notice any marks before this happened. Your honor, I think that it is clear here what was happening was the defendant was angry and being embarrassed and I think he wanted to go against that, lash out. That is what he did and that‘s what the pictures show.
The court also relied on the photographs when sentencing Hall. Specifically, the court stated, “There were three Exhibits that I looked at, those being pictures indicating bruises on the face and neck, and then bruises to the elbow.” Without a proper opportunity to challenge the photographs, Hall was severely hampered in his defense.
{¶17} Based on the foregoing analysis, we sustain Hall‘s second assignment of error. Because our determination of Hall‘s second assignment of error necessitates reversal of the trial court‘s judgment and a remand of the cause to the trial court, we find Hall‘s first assignment of error moot and decline to address it.
Conclusion
{¶18} Hall‘s second assignment of error is sustained, and his first assignment of error is rendered moot by our disposition of the second assignment of error. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is reversed and the cause is remanded for a new trial.
Judgment reversed and cause remanded.
Please note: The court has recorded its own entry on the date of the release of this opinion.