State v. Armstrong, 2025-Ohio-2609

Case Information

Court: Court of Appeals of Ohio, Second Appellate District, Greene County
Date: 2025-07-25
Citation: 2025-Ohio-2609
Read the Opinion

Summary

Summary: The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction of the Defendant for assault on a peace officer, rejecting claims that the State’s failure to preserve additional surveillance footage violated Brady or Crim.R. 16 and concluding that the trial court did not err in excluding irrelevant evidence through motions in limine.

Key Holdings

• The State does not violate Brady when it fails to preserve evidence not in its possession or control
• Speculative claims regarding the content of deleted video footage do not establish materiality for due process violations
• A discovery violation under Crim.R. 16 requires willfulness and prejudice which were not shown here
• Motions in limine may be final and appealable if they function as motions to suppress
• Irrelevant evidence concerning alternate charges and discovery disputes may be properly excluded to prevent jury confusion

More Information

The Defendant was indicted for assaulting a peace officer and criminal trespass following an altercation with an officer outside Peach’s Grill. After initially pleading not guilty and demanding surveillance footage, the Defendant later entered a no contest plea to the felony assault charge. He appealed, asserting due process violations under Brady and Crim.R. 16 due to the State’s failure to collect all requested video evidence from Peach’s Grill.

The court found no Brady violation because the missing footage had never been in the State’s possession and was automatically deleted before a retrieval request was made. Additionally, the content of the missing footage was speculative, and even if it showed a prior altercation, it would not be material to the charged offenses.

The court also held there was no willful discovery violation under Crim.R. 16. The relevant footage of the charged incident was provided, and any failure to preserve additional footage was not due to bad faith.

On the second claim, the Defendant challenged rulings on motions in limine, particularly those excluding references to resisting arrest, claims of victimization, and the discovery dispute. The appellate court held that two of the rulings were final and functioned like suppression orders, thus preserved for appeal. Nonetheless, the court upheld their exclusion, finding them irrelevant to the elements of the charged offenses and likely to confuse the jury.

Consequently, both of the Defendant’s assignments of error were overruled and the trial court’s judgment affirmed.