State v. Ruggles

• Decision Date: 11 May 2020
• Docket Number: CA2019-05-044,CA2019-05-046,NOS. CA2019-05-038,CA2019-05-045,S. CA2019-05-038
• Citation: 2020 Ohio 2886,154 N.E.3d 151
• Parties: STATE of Ohio, Appellee, v. Eric J. RUGGLES, Appellant.
• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals

154 N.E.3d 151

2020 Ohio 2886

STATE of Ohio, Appellee,

v.Eric J. RUGGLES, Appellant.

NOS. CA2019-05-038

CA2019-05-044

CA2019-05-045

CA2019-05-046

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Twelfth District, Warren County.

May 11, 2020

David P. Fornshell, Warren County Prosecuting Attorney, Kirsten A. Brandt, 520 Justice Drive, Lebanon, Ohio 45036, for appellee.

Arenstein & Gallagher, William Gallagher, Elizabeth Conkin, 114 E. Eighth Street, Cincinnati, Ohio 45202, for appellant.

OPINION

HENDRICKSON, P.J.

{¶1} Appellant, Eric J. Ruggles, appeals his convictions in the Warren County Court of Common Pleas for multiple sexual offenses.

{¶2} In June 2017, the Warren County Grand Jury indicted appellant on 17 sexual offenses in Case No. 17CR33134 that included rape, gross sexual imposition, and sexual battery. These offenses were alleged to have been committed against his biological daughter, S.D., from the ages of four to twelve years old. Later in December 2018, appellant was indicted by the Warren County Grand Jury on two additional counts of gross sexual imposition, in Case No. 18CR35021, alleged to have been committed against his younger biological daughter, A.D., when she was nine years old.

{¶3} Appellant entered a not guilty plea to both indictments and the matters were set for trial.¹ During the pendency of the cases, appellant filed multiple pretrial motions. First, appellant moved to compel discovery from the prosecution. Second, appellant moved to disclose an in chambers interview with the victims conducted by the Clark County Domestic Relations Court on a parental visitation matter. Third, appellant moved to disclose records from the Clark County Children Services Agency. The trial court granted appellant's motion to compel discovery from the prosecution but denied both the motions for disclosure of the court's and children services' records. The trial court denied these motions without conducting an in camera review of the requested records. Appellant filed an interlocutory appeal of the denial of the court record. This court dismissed the appeal, holding that the decision did not constitute a final appealable order. State v. Ruggles , 12th Dist. Warren No. CA2018-08-083 (Oct. 5, 2018) (Entry of Dismissal) ("Ruggles I ").

{¶4} The cases proceeded to a jury trial in March 2019.² At trial, the prosecution called four witnesses to testify: S.D., who was 19 years old at the time of the trial; A.D., who was 16 years old at the time of trial; the investigating officer from the Warren County Sheriff's Office; and the social worker from CARE House who conducted several forensic interviews with the victims. In addition to the witnesses, the prosecution introduced into evidence photographs of S.D. for the relevant time in her life, photographs of the various residences, and photographs of scars from an alleged injury. The defense called one witness to testify, appellant's wife, and had family photographs admitted into evidence.

{¶5} At the conclusion of the trial, in Case No. 17CR33134, the jury found appellant guilty of three counts of rape, each a first-degree felony; five counts of gross sexual imposition, each a third-degree felony; and two counts of sexual battery, both third-degree felonies. In Case No. 18CR35021, the jury found appellant guilty of one count of gross sexual imposition, a third-degree felony. The jury acquitted appellant of three counts of rape against S.D. and one count of gross sexual imposition against A.D.

{¶6} At the sentencing hearing, the trial court determined that several of the offenses in Case No. 17CR33134 were allied offenses of similar import and merged them together. Accordingly, appellant was sentenced on two counts of rape and two counts of gross sexual imposition with the sentences to run concurrently to each other for a total indefinite term of 15 years to life in prison with the possibility of parole after a mandatory 15 years. In Case No. 18CR35021, appellant was sentenced to 60 months in prison. The trial court ordered the sentences to run consecutively for an aggregate 20 years to life term of imprisonment.

{¶7} Appellant now appeals, raising seven assignments of error for review. For ease of analysis we will discuss the assignments of error out of order and have combined similar assigned errors.

{¶8} Assignment of Error No. 4:

{¶9} THE TRIAL COURT'S RULING DENYING MR. RUGGLES' MOTION FOR ORDER TO PRODUCE THE CLARK COUNTY DOMESTIC RELATIONS COURT'S 2012 IN-CAMERA INTERVIEWS OF S.D. AND A.D. DENIED MR. RUGGLES HIS SIXTH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO CONFRONT THE WITNESSES AGAINST HIM AND HIS FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS OF THE LAW.

{¶10} In his fourth assignment of error, appellant argues that the trial court violated his constitutional rights under the Confrontation and Due Process Clauses when it denied his motion for an order to produce the Clark County Domestic Relations Court's 2012 in camera interview of S.D. and A.D.³ Specifically, appellant contends that the interviews contain evidence material to his defense that is potentially exculpatory as the interviews were conducted on August 14, 2012, during the time frame some of the offenses alleged in the indictment were said to occur, i.e. from July 2003 through September 2012.

{¶11} Appellant and the victims' mother divorced, and appellant was awarded regular parenting time. The interviews in question took place in 2012, after the victims' mother filed a postdecree motion in the Clark County Domestic Relations Court seeking to modify appellant's parenting time based on allegations that appellant was exhibiting bizarre behavior that caused mental and emotional abuse to the children. As part of the postdecree proceedings, the Clark County Domestic Relations Court interviewed S.D. and A.D. in camera on August 14, 2012.⁴

{¶12} Appellant's trial counsel attempted to obtain a copy of the in camera interviews directly from the Clark County Domestic Relations Court. Counsel left a voice message for the Clark County Domestic Relations judge on July 19, 2018, to inquire about obtaining copies of the interviews as part of appellant's pending criminal charges. Counsel represented that the interviews were being requested because they were relevant to his criminal case and contained potentially exculpatory evidence. The day after counsel requested the information, counsel was informed by the Clark County Domestic Relations Court judge that he was not entitled to the interviews and the interviews would not be disclosed.

{¶13} As a result, appellant filed a "Motion for an Order to Produce the In-Camera Interviews" in the instant case. The trial court ruled upon appellant's motion without obtaining or reviewing the interview record. The trial court denied appellant's motion relying solely on this court's decision in Willis v. Willis , 149 Ohio App.3d 50, 2002-Ohio-3716, 775 N.E.2d 878 (12th Dist.), wherein this court held that "interviews of children conducted under R.C. 3109.051 are confidential and are not to be disclosed to the parents." Id. at ¶ 27. As indicated previously, appellant filed an interlocutory appeal based on this denial. The prosecutor moved to dismiss the appeal, asserting that the trial court's decision did not constitute a final appealable order. We agreed with the prosecutor's position and granted the motion to dismiss in Ruggles I. The matter returned to the trial court and proceeded to trial.

{¶14} Following appellant's conviction, a final appealable order was issued. In the instant appeal, appellant again challenges the trial court's denial of his pretrial motion to obtain the in camera interview records from the Clark County Domestic Relations Court. Appellant contends that in these interviews neither child alleged that sexual abuse occurred and that these interviews are, therefore, inconsistent with the accusations S.D. and A.D. later made during forensic interviews with investigators. Appellant further asserts that the trial court had other options to protect sensitive information instead of an outright denial. The trial court should have balanced appellant's right to exculpatory evidence with the need to protect against disclosure of privileged and confidential information by either designating the records "for counsel only" or conducting an in camera review.

{¶15} This situation and legal arguments presented are similar to those found in the landmark case of Pennsylvania v. Ritchie , 480 U.S. 39, 107 S.Ct. 989, 94 L.Ed.2d 40 (1987). In Ritchie , the defendant was convicted of committing sexual offenses against his daughter. Id. at 43-45, 107 S.Ct. 989. Before trial, the defendant subpoenaed records of past and current abuse from the local child protective service agency that interviewed his daughter. The agency refused to disclose the records, claiming the records were confidential under Pennsylvania law and the defendant's request did not fall within any of the statutory exceptions. The defendant moved the trial court to sanction the child protective service agency for failing to honor his subpoena. The defendant asserted that "he was entitled to the information because the file might contain the names of favorable witnesses, as well as other, unspecified exculpatory evidence." Id. at 44, 107 S.Ct. 989. After a hearing in chambers, the trial court, without examining the agency's entire records, denied the defendant's motion and refused to order the agency to disclose the records.

{¶16} On appeal, the defendant argued, in part, that the failure to disclose the contents of the agency's file violated his confrontation rights under the Sixth Amendment, as applied to the states pursuant to the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The state intermediate appellate court held that the defendant's constitutional rights were violated and that he was entitled to limited disclosure. Id. at 45-46, 107 S.Ct. 989. That court remanded the matter for the trial court to conduct an in camera examination of the records but only for...