Steve Palmer

Week of January 13 – 17 Appeals with Decisions Reversed

On Behalf of | Jan 28, 2025 | Firm News

Issue on Appeal: Motion to Suppress

Background: John Douglas Smith, the appellant, was a passenger in a vehicle stopped by Akron police on March 25, 2019. During the stop, Smith was informed that he could be cited for not wearing a seatbelt. When Smith refused to provide his identifying information, he was removed from the vehicle, handcuffed, and searched. Police found methamphetamine in his pocket, leading to an indictment for aggravated possession of drugs. Smith filed a motion to suppress the evidence obtained from the search, claiming the arrest was unlawful.

Legal Issue: Smith argued that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress the evidence, asserting that the arrest was not based on probable cause, as there was no evidence that he violated the seatbelt law. He contended that since the officers did not have a lawful reason to arrest him, the contraband discovered during the search should be inadmissible.

Court of Appeals Analysis: The appellate court reviewed the trial court’s factual findings, which were based on the officer’s body camera footage. The trial court had determined that Smith violated Akron City Code 72.70(B)(3) by not wearing a seatbelt, which gave police probable cause for arrest. However, the appellate court found that the body camera footage did not support this conclusion. There was no footage showing that Smith was not wearing a seatbelt at the time the SUV was stopped. The video only captured statements made by the officer in the present tense, and Smith repeatedly claimed he had been wearing his seatbelt. The court concluded that the trial court’s findings were not supported by competent, credible evidence.

Conclusion: The appellate court reversed the judgment of the Summit County Court of Common Pleas, finding that the evidence obtained during the search should have been suppressed. The case was remanded for further proceedings. The court emphasized that the State failed to demonstrate that Smith’s arrest was justified under the law, particularly regarding the seatbelt violation.

State v. Smith, 9th Dist. Summit No. 31052, 2024-Ohio-6097

Issue on Appeal: Motion to Suppress Evidence Obtained by a Drone

Background: Billy Bradley appealed his conviction for receiving stolen property, arguing that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence obtained from law enforcement’s aerial surveillance of his property. In November 2023, after receiving a tip that a stolen trailer was behind Bradley’s home, law enforcement used drone surveillance to monitor the property. Although the drone did not reveal the trailer, it did observe a red vehicle matching the description of a stolen car. Bradley was arrested, and subsequent evidence of stolen items was discovered on his property.

Legal Issue: Bradley raised several issues on appeal, including claims that his Fourth Amendment rights were violated due to the warrantless entry onto his property and the use of drone surveillance without a warrant. He argued that the evidence obtained from the vehicle, along with the stolen property, should be suppressed because law enforcement did not have a warrant or reasonable suspicion when they entered his property.

Court of Appeals Analysis: The court first addressed Bradley’s claim regarding the warrantless entry and arrest. It found that although there was no warrant, the evidence regarding the stolen vehicle was obtained independently through drone surveillance, which was conducted from a public space without infringing on Bradley’s reasonable expectation of privacy. The court cited previous cases, noting that aerial surveillance by law enforcement did not violate Fourth Amendment rights as long as the surveillance occurred in public airspace and did not directly overfly private property.

Regarding Bradley’s concerns over the drone surveillance, the court concluded that the deputies did not violate his Fourth Amendment rights. Since the drone flew over a public park and a business across the street, it did not constitute an illegal search under existing case law, which upheld the use of aerial surveillance in criminal investigations.

Finally, the court found that Bradley’s claim regarding the burden of proof was unnecessary to address, given that the evidence regarding the stolen vehicle was properly admitted.

Conclusion: The court affirmed Bradley’s conviction, ruling that the trial court did not err in denying his motion to suppress evidence obtained from the warrantless entry or the drone surveillance. The use of the drone did not violate Bradley’s constitutional rights, and the evidence obtained from the vehicle was admissible. As a result, Bradley’s conviction for receiving stolen property remained in place.

State v. Bradley, 2d Dist. Clark No. 2024-CA-31, 2025-Ohio-58

Issue on Appeal: Jury Instructions

Background: Matthew Gibbs appealed his conviction for rape and unlawful sexual conduct with a minor following a jury trial. In the summer of 2021, M.B., a 13-year-old girl, was staying at the home of her friend Kourtnie, due to her mother’s struggles with addiction. During her stay, M.B. was sexually assaulted by Appellant while sleeping in the same bed with him and Kourtnie. M.B. woke up to Appellant unbuckling her pants, and despite her protests, he proceeded to sexually assault her. M.B. later disclosed the assault to her friend Kourtnie, and police conducted an investigation, leading to Appellant’s confession and subsequent indictment on charges of rape and unlawful sexual conduct with a minor.

Legal Issue: Appellant raised multiple assignments of error on appeal, including challenges to the sufficiency and manifest weight of the evidence, the trial court’s refusal to give a requested jury instruction, and the admission of hearsay evidence. Appellant argued that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support his conviction for rape and that the trial court erred by not instructing the jury that force must be proven beyond that inherent in the crime of rape.

Court of Appeals Analysis: The court reviewed Appellant’s sufficiency of evidence claim under Crim. R. 29(A), examining whether the State had presented enough evidence for a rational jury to convict him of rape. The court upheld the jury’s finding, noting that the victim’s testimony, along with the circumstances surrounding the assault, provided sufficient evidence of force. Force does not need to be overt or brutal, and in this case, the victim’s fear and psychological distress were sufficient to establish the element of force required for a rape conviction.

In examining the manifest weight of the evidence, the court rejected Appellant’s argument that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence, considering that the jury had the opportunity to evaluate the credibility of the witnesses and the circumstances of the case.

The court also addressed the trial court’s failure to give Appellant’s requested jury instruction. It concluded that the trial court’s decision to follow the Ohio Jury Instructions (OJI) rather than Appellant’s specific request was not an abuse of discretion, as the jury instructions as a whole sufficiently conveyed the law.

Regarding the admission of hearsay evidence from M.B.’s forensic interview, the court found that even if the testimony had been erroneously admitted, it was harmless error because Appellant had confessed to the crime.

Conclusion: The court overruled most of Appellant’s assignments of error, affirming his conviction for unlawful sexual conduct with a minor. However, the court reversed his conviction for rape and remanded the case for a new trial, finding that the trial court had erred in failing to instruct the jury on the need to prove force beyond that inherent in the crime of rape.

Dissent: Judge Delaney dissented in part, disagreeing with the majority’s decision to sustain Appellant’s third assignment of error and reverse his rape conviction. She would have overruled this assignment of error, agreeing with the trial court’s decision to follow the Ohio Jury Instructions. Judge Delaney stated that there was no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s refusal to give Appellant’s requested instruction. She emphasized that the trial court’s judgment was not arbitrary and found that the trial court’s approach was reasonable given the facts and circumstances of the case.

State v. Gibbs, 5th Dist. Stark No. 2023CA00155, 2024-Ohio-6125