[Cite as State v. Green,
2021-Ohio-1645.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO
HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO
STATE OF OHIO, : APPEAL NO. C-200068
TRIAL NO. B-1802318
Plaintiff-Appellee, :
vs. :
O P I N I O N.
JONATHAN GREEN, :
Defendant-Appellant. :
Criminal Appeal From: Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas
Judgment Appealed From Is: Affirmed
Date of Judgment Entry on Appeal: May 12, 2021
Joseph T. Deters, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, and Mary Stier, Assistant
Prosecuting Attorney, for Plaintiff-Appellee,
Robinson & Jones Co. L.P.A. and Matthew E. Wiseman, for Defendant-Appellant.
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
ZAYAS, Presiding Judge.
{¶1} Jonathan Green appeals his convictions of two counts of aggravated
trafficking and trafficking in heroin. In his sole assignment of error, Green contends
that the trial court erred in not granting his motion to dismiss due to a violation of
his due-process rights because the state failed to preserve exculpatory evidence. For
the following reasons, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Factual Background
{¶2} Jonathan Green was arrested on April 20, 2018, after a traffic stop
initiated by Cincinnati Police Officer Marc Schildmeyer for a failure to use his turn
signal. When the police officers searched the car, they found heroin, ecstasy, and
marijuana. On May 9, 2018, Green filed a motion for Brady material and a discovery
request. Green also filed a subpoena for all cruiser and body camera recordings
related to the stop that was served on the Cincinnati Police Records Unit on June 20,
2018. Later that month, the state provided all of the recordings via electronic
discovery except the MVR from Schildmeyer’s vehicle.
{¶3} On February 19, 2019, Green filed a motion to suppress alleging that
the officer did not have any reasonable suspicion or probable cause to effectuate the
traffic stop. At the hearing on the motion, Schildmeyer explained that once his lights
are activated, the MVR will capture the events that occurred 30 seconds prior to
activation. He further testified that he waited approximately 45 to 60 seconds to
activate his lights after the traffic violation so the violation would not have been
recorded by the MVR. The trial court overruled the motion to suppress.
{¶4} Three months later, Green filed a motion to dismiss based on the
state’s failure to preserve the MVR from Schildmeyer’s police cruiser. At the hearing
2
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
on the motion, Schildmeyer again testified that the turn-signal violation would not
have been captured on the MVR due to the delay between the time of the violation
and the activation of the lights. On the day in question, Schildmeyer had tested the
MVR and confirmed it was working properly. The video would have been saved on
the hard drive which is located in the rear of the cruiser. Once the hard drive is
almost full, he would notify his supervisor, and that person would remove the hard
drive, replace it with a new one, and upload the video to the system.
{¶5} Only supervisors have a key to access the hard drive. Schildmeyer
could not access the video or delete the video. Schildmeyer testified that he did not
destroy, erase, or manipulate the MVR, and he did not ask anyone else to do so.
{¶6} Schildmeyer also explained that subpoenas for video would be sent to
the records section. To obtain MVR video, the records section would notify a woman
named Carrie from special services who then notifies an administrative sergeant.
That individual would then make a copy of the video and send it the records section.
Someone from the records department would then forward it to the prosecutor.
{¶7} After Schildmeyer’s testimony, the state admitted an audit trail of the
electronic discovery history. The exhibit showed that the state provided Green’s
former counsel with body-worn camera video of Officers Schildmeyer, Knapp, and
McCrath. The state also provided MVR video, but the MVR from Schildmeyer’s
cruiser was not included.
{¶8} Green testified on his own behalf. He insisted that he had used his
turn signal when he changed lanes.
{¶9} The trial court overruled the motion after finding that Green did not
establish that the state acted in bad faith. After the ruling, Green pled no contest to
3
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
all of the charges. The court accepted his no-contest pleas and found him guilty of all
of the charges.
Law and Analysis
{¶10} In his sole assignment of error, Green argues that the trial court erred
in not granting his motion to dismiss because the failure to preserve exculpatory
evidence violated his due-process rights. He further contends that state acted in bad
faith by failing to preserve the MVR.
{¶11} The state’s failure to preserve materially exculpatory evidence violates
a defendant’s due-process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United
States Constitution. State v. Brewster, 1st Dist. Hamilton Nos. C-030024 and C-
030025, 2004-Ohio-2993, ¶ 41. Evidence is materially exculpatory where the
evidence possesses an exculpatory value that is apparent before the evidence is
destroyed, and it is of such a nature that the defendant would be unable to obtain
comparable evidence by other reasonable means. Id. at ¶ 41.
{¶12} Even if the evidence is not exculpatory, the destruction of potentially
useful evidence violates a defendant’s due-process rights if the state acted in bad
faith. State v. Benson, 152 Ohio App.3d 693,
2003-Ohio-1944,
788 N.E.2d 693, ¶ 10
(1st Dist.). Bad faith “imports a dishonest purpose, moral obliquity, and conscious
wrongdoing, breach of a known duty through some ulterior motive or ill will
partaking of the nature of fraud. It also embraces actual intent to mislead or deceive
another.” Id. at ¶ 14.
{¶13} Typically, the defendant bears the burden to prove that the evidence is
exculpatory. Id. at ¶ 11. But, where the defendant moves to have the evidence
preserved, and the state destroys the evidence, the burden shifts to the state to show
4
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
the inculpatory value of the evidence. Id., citing State v. Benton, 136 Ohio App.3d
801, 805,
737 N.E.2d 1046 (6th Dist.2000). “If the evidence in question is not
materially exculpatory, but only potentially useful, the defendant must show bad
faith on the part of the state in order to demonstrate a due process violation.” State
v. Geeslin,
116 Ohio St.3d 252,
2007-Ohio-5239,
878 N.E.2d 1, ¶ 10. When the
missing evidence will not be used to establish guilt or innocence of the charges, it is
potentially useful and not materially exculpatory. Id. at ¶ 13.
{¶14} Here, Green filed a motion for Brady material, a discovery request,
and a subpoena for all cruiser and body camera recordings related to the stop that
was served on the Cincinnati Police Records Unit on June 20, 2018. Consequently,
the burden was on the state to establish that the MVR was not exculpatory. Relying
on Geeslin, the state established that the missing MVR was not materially
exculpatory because the missing videotape could not have established Green’s
innocence of the drug charges. Id. Therefore to establish a due-process violation,
Green was required to show the state acted in bad faith. Id. at ¶ 10.
{¶15} Green failed to present any evidence that the MVR was destroyed in
bad faith. Schildmeyer testified that he could not access the hard drive that
contained the MVR and was not authorized to upload the hard drive to the system.
When the hard drive is almost full, he notifies a supervisor who has a key to access
the hard drive. The supervisor removes the hard drive and uploads to the system.
{¶16} Schildmeyer also explained the city’s process when a subpoena is
issued to the records section. According to Schildmeyer, a woman named Carrie
from special services would be notified, and she would contact an administrative
sergeant who would make a copy of the MVR and send it the records section.
5
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
Someone from the records department would then forward it to the prosecutor.
None of the individuals involved with the subpoena process testified at the hearing.
Based on this record, we cannot determine when, how, or why the evidence was lost
much less conclude that the state acted in bad faith.
{¶17} Accordingly, we overrule the assignment of error.
Conclusion
{¶18} Having considered and overruled Green’s sole assignment of error, we
affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Judgment affirmed.
BERGERON and BOCK, JJ., concur.
Please note:
The court has recorded its own entry this date.
6
