Issue on Appeal: Expert Witness Reporting
Mario Corrales-Baez appealed his conviction for possession of a fentanyl-related compound in the Madison County Court of Common Pleas, raising three primary issues.
First, Corrales-Baez argued that the trial court abused its discretion by allowing the state to modify the 21-day disclosure rule for expert witness reports under Crim.R. 16(K). The state disclosed a drug analysis report only 14 days before trial, despite it being completed in August 2023. The appellate court found the state’s delay unjustified, as it failed to show good cause for not disclosing the report earlier. The trial court’s decision to modify the rule was deemed improper, leading the appellate court to reverse the trial court’s judgment and remand the case for further proceedings.
Second, Corrales-Baez contended that the delay between his August 14, 2023 arrest and his October 12, 2023 indictment violated his rights to due process and effective legal defense. He claimed that the late disclosure of evidence forced him to choose between his right to a speedy trial and the ability to conduct an independent analysis of the drugs in question.
Finally, Corrales-Baez argued that his conviction for possession of a fentanyl-related compound was against the manifest weight of the evidence. However, because the appellate court resolved the first issue in his favor, it deemed the second and third assignments of error moot and did not address them.
In conclusion, the appellate court reversed the trial court’s judgment and remanded the case for further action, finding that the state’s failure to justify its late disclosure of evidence under Crim.R. 16(K) constituted an abuse of discretion.
State v. Corrales-Baez, 12th Dist. Madison No. CA2023-12-019, 2024-Ohio-5358
Issue on Appeal: Mens Rea for Murder
Leander Bissell appealed his convictions for murder and other charges stemming from the death of Firefighter Johnny Tetrick, who was struck and killed by Bissell’s car while responding to a collision on Interstate 90. The appellate court reversed Bissell’s convictions for felony murder and failure to comply with a police order, modified the verdict to involuntary manslaughter with a predicate offense of reckless assault on a firefighter, and remanded the case for resentencing.
On November 19, 2022, Bissell drove through a restricted traffic lane at high speed, striking Firefighter Tetrick, who was clearing debris on the road. Bissell fled the scene, and a grand jury indicted him on charges including murder, felonious assault, involuntary manslaughter, failure to comply, aggravated vehicular homicide, and failure to stop at the scene of an accident. The trial court convicted Bissell on all charges, merging the counts into a felony murder conviction and sentencing him to 16 years to life in prison.
The appellate court reviewed the case and sustained Bissell’s challenges to his felony murder conviction, finding insufficient evidence to prove he acted “knowingly,” as required under the felonious assault predicate. The court noted that Bissell’s conduct demonstrated recklessness, not knowledge, distinguishing the case from precedents where intent or awareness of harm was established. The court also reversed the conviction for failure to comply, citing a lack of evidence that Bissell ignored a specific lawful order from police.
However, the appellate court found sufficient evidence to convict Bissell of the lesser included offense of involuntary manslaughter based on reckless assault, a first-degree felony. The evidence showed Bissell recklessly caused serious harm to Firefighter Tetrick while he was performing his duties.
The court vacated Bissell’s felony murder conviction, modified it to involuntary manslaughter, and remanded the case for resentencing, noting that the record supported this lesser charge. Costs were ordered to be split between the parties, and the trial court was directed to carry out the revised judgment.
Dissent:
The dissenting opinion argues that Bissell’s convictions for felony murder, felonious assault, and failure to comply should have been affirmed in full. The dissent focuses on the majority’s conclusion that Bissell did not act “knowingly” and expresses concern about the implications for public safety and the protection of emergency responders.
The dissent asserts that Bissell’s actions—speeding through a clearly hazardous scene with heavy first-responder presence, disregarding slow-moving traffic, and failing to adjust his behavior despite visible warnings—demonstrated the required mens rea of “knowingly” causing harm. The dissent emphasizes that “probable” harm, as defined in Ohio law, does not mean harm must be certain, and Bissell’s conduct made harm to others highly probable.
Regarding the failure-to-comply charge, the dissent argues that the presence of police vehicles with flashing lights directing traffic created an implicit lawful order to slow down and move into designated lanes. By ignoring this order and continuing at high speed in a restricted lane, Bissell acted recklessly, which satisfies the required mens rea for the offense.
In conclusion, the dissent contends that the evidence supported all of Bissell’s convictions under both sufficiency and manifest weight standards, and the majority’s decision undermines accountability for reckless and dangerous driving in situations involving emergency responders.
State v. Bissell, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 113158, 2024-Ohio-5317
Issue on Appeal: Change of Plea and Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
Kyle J. Lockwood appealed the denial of his motion to withdraw his guilty plea in the Ashtabula County Court of Common Pleas. The appellate court reversed the lower court’s decision and remanded the case for further proceedings, finding that the motion should have been granted based on inadequate legal representation and evidence of Lockwood’s reluctance to plead guilty.
Lockwood had pleaded guilty to one count of Importuning and one count of Disseminating Matter Harmful to Juveniles, with the remaining charges dismissed. However, he later sought to withdraw his plea, citing ineffective assistance of counsel. Evidence presented showed that his initial attorney, Altier, had limited communication with Lockwood, failed to review evidence and potential defenses thoroughly, and expressed unwillingness to take the case to trial due to his age. During the plea hearing, Lockwood denied committing the crimes and indicated he did not want to plead guilty.
The appellate court acknowledged that Lockwood was advised of his rights during the plea hearing and that the plea appeared procedurally correct. However, it emphasized that his attorney’s inadequate preparation and unwillingness to proceed to trial likely influenced the plea. The court also noted that Lockwood quickly sought new counsel and filed his motion to withdraw soon after entering the plea, which undercut the argument that his actions were merely a change of heart.
Considering Lockwood’s assertions of innocence, the lack of prejudice to the state, and the evidence of deficient representation, the appellate court determined that denying the motion was an abuse of discretion. It concluded that a presentence motion to withdraw a guilty plea should be “freely and liberally granted” and reversed the lower court’s decision, remanding the case for further proceedings.
State v. Lockwood, 11th Dist. Ashtabula No. 2024-A-0039, 2024-Ohio-5370
Issue on Appeal: Conflict of Interest
Curtis Elkins is appealing his conviction for felonious assault, which was rendered by the Sandusky County Court of Common Pleas on June 2, 2023. Elkins raises three assignments of error: (1) the conviction was against the manifest weight of the evidence and lacked sufficient evidence, (2) the court erred by failing to give a lesser-included instruction for assault, and (3) the court should have disqualified itself due to a conflict of interest involving a family member, Detective Ortolani, testifying in the case.
Elkins was indicted for felonious assault after an incident where he punched the victim, S.W., in a bar. He was sentenced to six years in prison, with a possible maximum of nine years. Elkins later filed a motion for bail and suspension of his sentence pending the appeal, which was deemed moot.
Regarding the third assignment of error, Elkins argued that the trial judge should have recused himself due to his familial relationship with Detective Ortolani, a key witness in the case. Elkins was unaware of the relationship until after sentencing. The appellate court found that there was an unconstitutional potential for bias because the judge did not disclose the relationship before or during the trial. Therefore, the court reversed the trial court’s judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. Elkins’ remaining assignments of error were rendered moot due to the resolution of the conflict of interest issue.
Elkins’ motion for bail and suspension of sentence was also found to be moot, and the appeal is concluded with the case being sent back to the trial court for further action.
State v. Elkins, 6th Dist. Sandusky No. S-23-016, 2024-Ohio-5351