State v. Smith

Citations

• 2024 Ohio 5168

Syllabus

CRIMINAL-SPEEDY TRIAL-MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE-PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT-BRADY VIOLATION - Where reasons of Appellant's own making caused Appellant to be without counsel for a substantial period of time, and it was reasonable to give new counsel an opportunity to review Appellant's case and prepare for trial, trial court's continuance was reasonable and court did not abuse its discretion by denying Appellant's motion to dismiss based on speedy trial. Where Appellant did not raise a second speedy trial motion subsequent to the trial court's denial of first motion, issue is waived for purposes of appeal; Appellant's conviction for felony theft is not against the manifest weight of the evidence where the jurors were presented voluminous testimony, jurors were in the best position to consider the credibility of the witnesses and resolve conflicts in the evidence, and obviously found prosecution's witnesses and theory of the case more believable than defense witnesses and theory of the case, particularly with regard to characterization of texts presented on parties' joint exhibit; Appellant did not demonstrate that prosecution committed Brady violation by later withholding electronic devices seized by properly executed search warrant where Smith retained possession of his devices subsequent to his indictment in September 2019 and prior to execution of the search warrant in October 2021, and common sense would dictate that Appellant should have reviewed his devices for materially exculpatory information at some point during two-year time period and especially after his first trial date was scheduled in March 2020; further, record indicates Appellant was given opportunity to work with the State in order to retrieve the information contained on his devices and failed to make any attempt to do so; key consideration is that Appellant did not establish that the evidence claimed to be on the devices was materially exculpatory.