Background
Johnny Cowherd was charged with drug trafficking and possession offenses after engaging in controlled buys of narcotics. He was initially released on a $10,000 bail, but after additional charges were filed, his bail was raised to $1,000,000. Cowherd argued that this amount was excessive and effectively denied him bail. He filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, claiming the bail was unconstitutional and should be reduced. The State contended that the high bail was necessary for public safety, citing alleged threats Cowherd made to witnesses while out on bail. Cowherd denied making threats and submitted evidence of his employment and community ties.
Legal Issue
The central issue was whether the $1,000,000 bail imposed on Cowherd was excessive in violation of his constitutional rights, particularly the prohibition against excessive bail under the Eighth Amendment and Ohio law. Cowherd argued that the bail was set to keep him incarcerated prior to trial rather than ensuring his appearance in court. The State defended the bail amount, stating that it was necessary for public safety and to ensure Cowherd’s appearance at trial.
Court of Appeals Analysis
The Court reviewed the bail decision under the relevant Ohio statutes and constitutional provisions, including R.C. 2937.011 and Article I, Section 9 of the Ohio Constitution, which prohibit excessive bail. It found that while the charges against Cowherd were serious, the record did not support the State’s claims that Cowherd posed a significant public safety risk. The Court noted that Cowherd had substantial ties to the community, was employed, and had no history of failing to appear in court. The evidence presented by Cowherd contradicted the State’s claims of witness intimidation, and no additional evidence of misconduct was submitted by the State.
Conclusion
The Court concluded that the $1,000,000 bail was excessive and granted Cowherd’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus. It reduced Cowherd’s bail to $100,000, secured by a ten-percent deposit, and imposed conditions prohibiting contact with the alleged witness and firearm possession. The request for electronic monitoring was denied due to the lack of evidence that Cowherd posed a flight risk or threat to witnesses.
Cowherd v. McGuffey, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-240642, 2025-Ohio-387
Issue on Appeal: Confrontation Clause and Sentence for Rape and GSI
Background
William Ray McKenzie was convicted by a jury of two counts of rape and ten counts of gross sexual imposition (GSI), with the jury finding that the victim, A.J.W., was under the age of 13 for the rape counts and under 12 for the GSI offenses. The trial court imposed a sentence of 25 years to life for each rape count, to be served consecutively, and 60 months for each GSI offense, with four GSI counts to be served consecutively and the remaining six concurrently. McKenzie appealed, challenging the trial court’s decisions regarding A.J.W.’s testimony via closed-circuit television and the consecutive sentences.
Legal Issue
McKenzie raised two primary issues on appeal: (1) whether the trial court abused its discretion in allowing A.J.W. to testify via closed-circuit television and (2) whether the trial court erred in ordering consecutive sentences for the rape and GSI convictions, arguing that the offenses were allied offenses of similar import.
Court of Appeals Analysis
Regarding the first issue, the Court upheld the trial court’s decision to allow A.J.W. to testify via closed-circuit television. The Court found that A.J.W.’s persistent refusal to testify, despite multiple attempts by the prosecution, satisfied the criteria in R.C. 2945.481 for allowing testimony outside the presence of the defendant and jury. The Court rejected McKenzie’s claims that the trial court’s reconsideration of the motion was structural error or plain error.
For the second issue, the Court agreed with the trial court’s conclusion that McKenzie’s offenses were not allied offenses of similar import. The victim testified to multiple, distinct acts of sexual abuse over a prolonged period, including vaginal and oral sexual contact and penetration. The Court found that these offenses were committed separately and with separate animus, thus justifying the consecutive sentences.
Conclusion
The Court affirmed McKenzie’s convictions and sentence, overruling both assignments of error. The trial court’s decision to allow closed-circuit testimony and impose consecutive sentences was upheld.
https://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/4/2025/2025-Ohio-415.pdf
Issue on Appeal: Motion to Suppress
Background:
On December 28, 2022, Jerry Logsdon was involved in a motor vehicle collision that resulted in the death of a pedestrian and serious injuries to Logsdon. Logsdon was transported to Miami Valley Hospital for treatment. On January 3, 2023, Dayton Police Detective Christopher Jordan visited Logsdon at the hospital to conduct an interview. During the interview, Logsdon made several statements, which were later used against him. Logsdon was charged with vehicular homicide, vehicular manslaughter, failure to control, and speeding. He filed a motion to suppress his statements, arguing they were made without proper Miranda warnings and without the opportunity to consult with an attorney. The trial court granted his motion to suppress, finding that Logsdon was in custody during the interview, and that his waiver of rights was not knowing or voluntary due to his pain and medications. The State appealed.
Legal Issue:
The primary issue on appeal is whether the trial court erred in suppressing Logsdon’s statements, focusing on whether Logsdon was in custody during the interview, whether his waiver of rights was valid, and whether he invoked his right to counsel.
Court of Appeals Analysis:
The Court of Appeals began by reviewing whether Logsdon was in custody, which would require Miranda warnings. The Court emphasized that custody involves a significant deprivation of freedom and noted that Logsdon was not handcuffed or restricted in his movements, and the interview took place in a hospital, a place a person would generally feel free to leave. The Court concluded there was no evidence supporting the trial court’s finding that Logsdon was in custody. The Court then addressed the validity of Logsdon’s waiver of rights. Based on the totality of circumstances, including Logsdon’s education, mental status, and the nature of the interview, the Court found his waiver of Miranda rights was made knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily. Lastly, the Court considered whether Logsdon invoked his right to counsel. It concluded that Logsdon’s statement was not a clear, unambiguous invocation of that right, as his comment could reasonably be interpreted as referring to the need for an appointed attorney if necessary, rather than a request for immediate counsel.
Conclusion:
The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s order suppressing Logsdon’s statements. The Court found that Logsdon was not in custody, his waiver of rights was valid, and he did not invoke his right to counsel. The case was remanded for further proceedings.
State v. Logsdon, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 30290, 2025-Ohio-298