State v. Heretick
This text of 2017 Ohio 5682 (State v. Heretick) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
[Cite as State v. Heretick, 2017-Ohio-5682.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT LUCAS COUNTY
State of Ohio/City of Maumee Court of Appeals No. L-16-1224
Plaintiff Trial Court No. 15TRC07101
v.
Corey T. Heretick
Appellee DECISION AND JUDGMENT
[Ohio Department of Health-Appellant] Decided: June 30, 2017
*****
Andrew R. Bucher, for appellee.
Michael DeWine, Attorney General, and Deborah A. Enck and Henry G. Appel, Assistant Attorney Generals, for appellant.
PIETRYKOWSKI, J.
{¶ 1} Non-party appellant, Ohio Department of Health (“ODH”), appeals the
September 2, 2016 judgment of the Maumee Municipal Court which denied its motion to quash a subpoena propounded upon it by the Maumee city prosecutor following a motion
to compel discovery filed by defendant-appellee, Corey Heretick. For the reasons set
forth herein, we reverse.
{¶ 2} The relevant background facts are as follows. On December 15, 2015,
appellee was arrested for suspicion of driving under the influence of alcohol. At the
Maumee Police station he submitted to a breath alcohol test on an Intoxilyzer 8000
instrument, serial number 80-003907. Appellee’s breath-alcohol concentration was
recorded at 0.148, a prohibited amount. Appellant was then charged under R.C.
4511.19(A)(1)(a) and (d).
{¶ 3} On June 3, 2016, appellee filed a motion to compel production of various
documents relating to the Intoxilyzer 8000 and which were retained by ODH. Thereafter,
the Maumee City Prosecutor issued a subpoena to the ODH demanding the production of
the documents. On July 12, 2016, the ODH filed a motion to quash the city’s subpoena,
in part. In its motion, the ODH asserted that it had provided all the requested documents
with the exception of the correspondence and communications including audiotape
recordings between ODH and/or the Department of Public safety and the manufacturer,
CMI, Inc., and the notes and memoranda regarding the production or schema (blueprint
of the construction of the database) relating to the database.
{¶ 4} ODH claimed that requiring the production of the correspondence was
unduly burdensome and was a classic example of a prohibited “fishing expedition.” As
2. to the database information, the ODH argued that this proprietary information belonged
to the manufacturer and that the licensing agreement prohibits ODH from sharing the
information with third parties.
{¶ 5} On September 2, 2016, the trial court summarily denied the motion stating:
“Upon consideration of State’s Attorney General Motion to Quash In Part Subpoena
Issued to Ohio Department of Health, the Court finds that it is not well-taken and said
motion is hereby denied.” This appeal followed with appellant, ODH, raising two
assignments of error.
First Assignment of Error: The trial court abused its discretion when
it denied ODH’s motion to quash because appellee’s demand for
communications without a time limit is an “unduly burdensome … general
‘fishing expedition’” under Crim.R. 17 and Potts.
Second Assignment of Error: The trial court abused its discretion
when it denied ODH’s motion to quash and ordered production of material
that could only be used to attack the general reliability of the Intoxilyzer
8000 in violation of Ilg.
{¶ 6} Initially we note that this court reviews a trial court’s decision regarding the
admission or exclusion of evidence for an abuse of discretion. In re J.F., 6th Dist. Huron
No. H-10-002, 2010-Ohio-4385, ¶ 8, citing State v. Combs, 62 Ohio St.3d 278, 581
3. N.E.2d 1071 (1991). A court abuses is discretion when its judgment is unreasonable or
arbitrary.
{¶ 7} The Supreme Court of Ohio has held that “when deciding a motion to quash
duces tecum requesting the production of documents prior to trial, a trial court shall hold
an evidentiary hearing.” In re Subpoena Duces Tecum Served upon Potts, 100 Ohio
St.3d 97, 2003-Ohio-5234, 796 N.E.2d 915, syllabus. The court held that at the hearing
the proponent of the subpoena must demonstrate to the court:
“(1) that the documents are evidentiary and relevant; (2) that they are
not otherwise procurable reasonably in advance of trial by exercise of due
diligence; (3) that the party cannot properly prepare for trial without such
production and inspection in advance of trial and that the failure to obtain
such inspection may tend unreasonably to delay the trial; and (4) that the
application is made in good faith and is not intended as a general “‘fishing
expedition.’” (United States v. Nixon [1974], 418 U.S. 683, 699-700, 94
S.Ct. 3090, 41 L.Ed.2d 1039, followed.) Id.
{¶ 8} In a case involving the ODH’s motion to quash a subpoena, the First
Appellate District held that the trial court erred in denying the motion without first
conducting an evidentiary hearing. Cincinnati v. Neff, 1st Dist. Hamilton Nos. C-130411,
C-130511, C-130512, 2014-Ohio-2026. The court noted that it was not the defendant’s
burden to demonstrate the propriety of the subpoena. Id. at ¶ 10. Similarly, in Parma v.
4. Schoonover, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 100152, 2014-Ohio-400, the trial court denied the
ODH’s motion to quash the subpoena without conducting an evidentiary hearing; the
decision was reversed on this basis. Id. at ¶ 16, relying on State v. Baker, 12th Dist.
Warren No. CA2009-06-079, 2010-Ohio-1289.
{¶ 9} In the present case, the ODH first argues that because the trial court failed to
conduct an evidentiary hearing, appellee failed to meet the requirements enumerated in
the Nixon test. In response, appellee contends that the ODH’s refusal to provide the
requested materials is merely a rehashing of multiple, prior cases including three in
Maumee Municipal Court where hearings were held and extensive cross-examination of
the defense expert was undertaken by the attorney general’s office. Appellee further
asserts that he requested that the trial court rely on one of the prior Maumee cases,
Maumee v. Abdullah, Maumee M.C. No. 14TRC07683, in rendering its decision and that
he provided the court with the transcript of the Abdullah hearing. Appellee argues that
the testimony presented by Abdullah’s expert during that hearing was uncontroverted; he
goes on at length to recite the substance of the testimony. Based on this, appellee
contends that in rendering its decision, the trial court had an “eloquent” and complete
explanation of what records were being sought and why such evidence was necessary to
determine the motion in this case.
{¶ 10} On review, we find that there is no indication in the record or, specifically,
in the trial court’s judgment, that it considered and relied upon prior hearings in its court.
5. Further, the transcript from the Abdullah hearing was not filed in the instant case. We
may not consider an expert’s opinion admitted in a completely separate case. Moreover,
there is no indication in the record that the trial court considered the Nixon factors in
denying the ODH’s motion.
{¶ 11} Based on the foregoing, we find that appellant ODH’s first assignment of
error is well-taken and that appellant’s second assignment of error is moot.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
2017 Ohio 5682, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-heretick-ohioctapp-2017.