OH8: State’s losing exhibits from suppression hearing requires new trial

Appellant appeals the denial of his suppression motion, but a bunch of the exhibits are missing. The state relies on precedent that it’s the appellant’s obligation to bring up a record. The state, however, somehow got Exhibits 1-23 back and now they are missing, and they certified to the court that they looked and can’t find them. The fault for lack of a record isn’t attributable to the defendant. Reversed for a new trial. State v. Garcia, 2019-Ohio-4885, 2019 Ohio App. LEXIS 4928 (8th Dist. Nov. 27, 2019).

The officer’s statement that he’d try to get a search warrant if consent was informative was not coercive. The officer explained the process, and the consent was a free choice. State v. Mathis, 2019-Ohio-4887, 2019 Ohio App. LEXIS 4929 (8th Dist. Nov. 29, 2019).*

This entry was posted in Consent, Suppression hearings. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.