State v. Hall, 2009 Ohio 3824 (Ohio App. 8/3/2009), No. 1-08-66.
| Decision Date | 03 August 2009 |
| Docket Number | No. 1-08-66. |
| Citation | 2009 Ohio 3824 |
| Parties | State of Ohio, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Earl Hall, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Allen County Common Pleas Court, Trial Court No. CR 2007 0324.
Judgment Affirmed.
Kenneth J. Rexford, for Appellant.
Jana E. Emerick, for Appellee.
{¶1} Defendant-appellant, Earl Hall (hereinafter "Hall"), appeals the Allen County Court of Common Pleas' judgment of conviction and imposition of sentence. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
{¶2} On September 13, 2007, the Allen County Grand Jury indicted Hall on one (1) count of possession of crack cocaine in violation of R.C. 2925.11(A) & (C)(4)(d), a second degree felony. (Doc. No. 1). On October 15, 2007, Hall was arraigned and entered a plea of not guilty to the indictment. (Id.). The trial court scheduled a two-day jury trial to begin on January 8, 2008. (Doc. No. 11).
{¶3} On October 15, 2007, the State filed a demand for discovery and its response to defendant's demand for discovery. (Doc. Nos. 7-8). On October 18, 2007, Hall filed an "omnibus initial pretrial discovery motion," which sought discovery, a bill of particulars, production of Evid.R. 404(B) evidence, and responded to the State's discovery demand. (Doc. No. 9). That same day, Hall also filed a supplemental discovery and Giglio-Rovario motion seeking the identity of any police informants and disclosure of any promises, inducements, or agreements made with the same. (Doc. No. 10). The trial court granted Hall's motion to identify informants on December 4, 2007. (Doc. No. 14).
{¶4} On November 7, 2007, Hall filed another request for supplemental discovery, as requested by his defense expert, seeking, among other things, a complete copy of the BCI & I case file, a copy of the laboratory protocols, evidence of chain-of-custody, a list of the software programs used to conduct the DNA analysis, STR frequency tables, documentation of corrective actions for discrepancies, and accreditation and background information on the BCI & I laboratory personnel handling the evidence in his case. (Doc. No. 12).
{¶5} On December 26, 2007, Hall filed a motion to continue the jury trial alleging that the State had failed to provide adequate discovery and seeking a court order to compel the State to provide the requested discovery per its November 7, 2007 motion. (Doc. No. 42-43). On December 27, 2007, the trial court granted Hall's continuance motion but denied Hall's motion for discovery finding that Crim.R. 16(B)(1)(d) did not extend to material upon which a report is based, and, likewise, that Crim.R. 16(B)(1)(e) required disclosure of potential witnesses' names, not the substance of their testimony. (Doc. No. 46). The trial court then set the matter for a pre-trial scheduling conference to be held January 7, 2008. (Id.). The jury trial was rescheduled for April 1, 2008. (Doc. No. 48).
{¶6} On January 8, 2008, Hall filed a motion for disclosure of the identity of the confidential informant used to obtain a search warrant for the premises where he was arrested. (Doc. No. 49).
{¶7} On February 20, 2008, Hall filed a motion for reconsideration of the trial court's ruling on his prior discovery request. (Doc. No. 52). On March 13, 2008, the State filed a response to Hall's motion. (Doc. No. 53). On March 14 2008, the trial court overruled Hall's motion, finding that the disclosure of the scientific report satisfies the State's obligation under Crim.R. 16(B)(1)(d). (Doc. No. 54). The trial court further found that the evidence requested by Hall was not material to his defense, because he had only demonstrated a mere possibility, as opposed to a reasonable probability, that if the material was disclosed the result of the proceedings might be different. (Id.). The trial court then ordered, pursuant to Crim.R. 16(B)(1)(c) & (d), the disclosure of:
1. Any results or reports of scientific tests or experiments, made in connection with this particular case;
2. Any papers, documents, tangible objects, or copies or portions thereof, available to or within the possession, custody or control of the state, and which are intended for use by the prosecuting attorney as evidence at the trial ...
3. Documentation regarding the laboratory protocol following in this case, to wit: the chain of custody, accreditation of the BCI & I Lab with regard to DNA testing, and the qualifications of the laboratory personnel involved in the testing of this case
(Id., emphasis in original).
{¶8} On March 17, 2008, the State filed a supplemental response to defendant's discovery demand. (Doc. No. 56). On that same day, Hall again filed a motion to continue the jury trial, which the trial court granted and rescheduled the trial for June 10, 2008. (Doc. Nos. 55, 60). Thereafter, on March 21, 2008, Hall filed another request for supplemental discovery seeking chain-of-custody information, to which the State responded on March 27, 2008. (Doc. Nos. 57, 62). On March 28, 2008, Hall filed a request for supplemental discovery seeking any photographic or other evidence preserving images of latent finger prints found on the plastic baggies. (Doc. No. 63).
{¶9} On April 8, 2008, the trial court reviewed Hall's several discovery motions and overruled his request for discovery of items requested by his expert, but it granted his request for discovery of chain-of-custody information and evidence related to the latent fingerprints. (Doc. No. 64). On April 9, 2008, Hall filed a motion to compel discovery and requesting a hearing. (Doc. No. 65).
{¶10} On May 13, 2008, Hall filed a motion to dismiss alleging that the State committed various Brady violations and violated his right to a speedy trial. (Doc. No. 66). On May 27, 2008, the State responded to the motion arguing that Hall failed to establish that the police destroyed or discarded potentially exculpatory evidence in bad faith and that speedy trial time had not lapsed since time is calculated from the date of the indictment, not arrest. (Doc. No. 87). A hearing on the motion was held that same day. (See May 27, 2008 Tr.).
{¶11} On May 28, 2008, the State filed its bill of particulars and supplemental discovery. (Doc. Nos. 102-03). On May 30, 2008, a show cause hearing regarding the State's compliance with discovery was held. (See May 30, 2008 Tr.). At the hearing, Hall moved for a continuance, which the trial court granted and rescheduled trial for July 29, 2008. (Doc. Nos. 111, 119). On May 30th and June 3rd of 2008, the State filed additional supplemental discovery. (Doc. Nos. 108, 110).
{¶12} On July 15, 2008, the trial court overruled Hall's motion to dismiss, finding that the latent fingerprint evidence was not materially exculpatory but only potentially useful and that Hall failed to show bad faith. (Doc. No. 120). The trial court also overruled Hall's motion to dismiss based upon speedy trial, finding that Hall's several continuance motions and motion to dismiss tolled time. (Id.). On July 16, 2008, Hall filed a motion for reconsideration, which the trial court overruled on July 17, 2008. (Doc. Nos. 122-23).
{¶13} On July 24, 2008, the trial court granted Hall's request to perpetuate the testimony of Willie Helton at a hearing. The trial court also granted a continuance in order for the defense to prepare for the hearing and rescheduled the trial for August 26, 2008. (Doc. No. 131).
{¶14} On August 11, 2008, the trial court held a pre-trial hearing wherein Hall waived his right to a speedy trial under R.C. 2945.71 and requested a continuance. The trial court rescheduled the trial for September 16, 2008. (Doc. No. 138).
{¶15} On September 16-18, 2008, the matter proceeded to trial wherein the jury found Hall guilty as charged in the indictment. (Doc. No. 201). On October 27, 2008, the trial court sentenced Hall to six (6) years incarceration. (Doc. No. 212).
{¶16} On October 30, 2008, Hall filed this present appeal. (Doc. No. 220). Hall now appeals raising five assignments of error for our review. We have elected to address Hall's assignments of error out of the order they appear in his brief.
THE TRIAL COURT SHOULD HAVE DISMISSED THE CHARGES AGAINST HALL FOR CONSTITUTIONAL SPEEDY TRIAL VIOLATIONS.
{¶17} In his second assignment of error, Hall argues that the trial court erred by not dismissing the charges for a speedy trial violation. The State argues that, when tolled time is calculated, Hall was prosecuted within speedy trial time. We agree with the State.
{¶18} Both the U.S. Constitution and the Ohio Constitution guarantee a criminal defendant the right to a speedy trial. Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution; Section 10, Article 1, Ohio Constitution. State v. Baker (1997), 78 Ohio St.3d 108, 110, 676 N.E.2d 883. The states, however, are free to prescribe a reasonable period of time to meet these constitutional mandates. Id., citing Barker v. Wingo (1972) 407 U.S. 514, 523, 92 S.Ct. 2182, 33 L.E.2d 101. To that end, R.C. 2945.71(C)(2) provides: "[a] person against whom a charge of felony is pending [s]hall be brought to trial within two hundred seventy days after a person's arrest." The speedy trial provisions in R.C. 2945.71 are coextensive with constitutional speedy trial provisions. State v. King (1994), 70 Ohio St.3d 158, 161, 637 N.E.2d 903, citing State v. O'Brien (1987), 34 Ohio St.3d 7, 516 N.E.2d 218.
{¶19} A speedy trial claim involves a mixed question of law and fact for purposes of appellate review. State v. Masters, 172 Ohio App.3d 666, 2007-Ohio4-229, 876 N.E.2d 1007, ¶11, citing State v. High (2001), 143 Ohio App.3d 232, 242, 757 N.E.2d 1176. Accordingly, a reviewing court must give due deference to the trial court's findings of fact if they are supported by competent, credible evidence but will independently review whether the trial court correctly applied the law to the facts of the case. M...
To continue reading
Request your trial