State v. Baker - Ohio Supreme Court Opinion - Ohio Supreme Court Decision

	ROMINGER LEGAL
		Ohio Court Cases and Opinions - Ohio Legal Research
					Need Legal Help?
					Need Legal Help?
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER			LEGAL HEADLINES - CASE LAW - LEGAL FORMS	NOT FINDING WHAT YOU NEED? -RESEARCH

This court case was taken from the web sites of the Ohio Courts. Search our site for more cases - CLICK HERE

LEGAL RESEARCH

COURT REPORTERS

PRIVATE INVESTIGATORS

PROCESS SERVERS

DOCUMENT RETRIEVERS

EXPERT WITNESSES

Find a Private Investigator

Find an Expert Witness

Find a Process Server

Case Law - save on Lexis / WestLaw.

Legal News - Legal Headlines

1
THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLANT, V. BAKER, APPELLEE.
2
[Cite as State v. Baker (1997), ___Ohio St.3d___.]
3
Criminal law -- In issuing a subsequent indictment, state is not subject
4
to the speedy-trial timetable of the initial indictment, when.
5
In issuing a subsequent indictment, the state is not subject to the speedy-trial
6
timetable of the initial indictment, when additional criminal charges arise
7
from facts different from the original charges, or the state did not know
8
of these facts at the time of the initial indictment.
9

(No. 96-346--Submitted at the Urbana Session November 13, 1996--
10
Decided April 2, 1997.)
11
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Montgomery County, No. CA 15051.
12

On June 10, 1993, Dale Baker, defendant-appellee, a pharmacist, was
13
arrested at his home by Montgomery County Sheriff's Deputies after an
14
investigation revealed that he had made several illegal sales of prescription
15
drugs to police informants. That same day, after arresting Baker, deputies and
16
other law enforcement agents, working in connection with the Ohio State
17
Board of Pharmacy, executed search warrants for two pharmacies that Baker
18
owned. As a result of these warrants, state agents seized numerous business

1
and financial records from the pharmacies, which the state began analyzing to
2
determine if there was additional criminal conduct.
3

One week after his arrest, Baker was indicted by a Montgomery County
4
Grand Jury and charged with two counts of trafficking in drugs, and five counts
5
of aggravated trafficking. These charges stemmed from the original controlled
6
buys that occurred before Baker's arrest and the search of his pharmacies.
7

While these original charges were being brought against Baker, state
8
agents and sheriff's detectives were auditing the records seized at Baker's
9
pharmacies. This process involved analyzing prescription records and
10
purchase reports to determine possible drug shortages, which would indicate
11
criminal or administrative violations of law. The audits for the pharmacies,
12
Baker's Northridge Drug Store and Baker's Dixie Drugs, were completed by
13
August 18, 1993 and September 15, 1993, respectively. As a result of these
14
audits, a second indictment was filed, charging Baker with eight additional
15
counts of drug trafficking, one count of aggravated trafficking, and one count
16
of Medicaid fraud. This subsequent indictment was filed on June 1, 1994,
17
almost a year after the arrest and original indictment was filed against Baker,

2

1
and nine months after the audits of Baker's pharmacy records were both
2
completed.
3

On July 27, 1994, Baker filed a motion to dismiss the second indictment,
4
alleging that his right to a speedy trial had been violated. Baker argued that the
5
statute required the state to bring him to trial on the second indictment within
6
the same period as the first, that is, 270 days from Baker's arrest on June 10,
7
1993. However, in upholding the second indictment, the trial court held that
8
the allegations and proof for the two indictments were different from each
9
other, and the state was justified in delaying the second indictment until it was
10
able to analyze Baker's extensive pharmaceutical records for evidence of
11
additional criminal misconduct. Baker agreed to enter negotiated pleas on both
12
cases, and plead no contest to one count of trafficking in drugs and one count
13
of Medicaid fraud on the second indictment. On the original indictment, the
14
state reduced the five counts of aggravated trafficking to trafficking in drugs,
15
and Baker pleaded no contest to seven counts of trafficking in drugs.
16

On appeal, Baker challenged his convictions arising from the second
17
indictment, arguing his constitutional and statutory right to a speedy trial had

3

1
been violated. The court of appeals affirmed his judgment of conviction on the
2
original indictment, but agreed that Baker's statutory right to a speedy trial had
3
been violated as to the second indictment. The appellate court held that the
4
speedy-trial clock as to the second indictment began to run on the date of
5
Baker's arrest on June 10, 1993; however, the state was entitled to have time
6
tolled from that date until September 15, 1993, the date when both audits were
7
completed by the state concerning Baker's pharmacy records. Despite this
8
tolled period, the court established that the state had failed to bring Baker to
9
trial within the 270-day period, and the court reversed Baker's judgment of
10
conviction under the second indictment. The state appealed, arguing that the
11
270-day time period concerning the additional charges should commence from
12
the date the second indictment was returned on June 1, 1994.
13

The cause is now before this court pursuant to the allowance of a
14
discretionary appeal.
15
___________
16

Mathias H. Heck, Jr., Montgomery County Prosecuting Attorney, and
17
Carley J. Ingram, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellant.

4

1

Lawrence W. Henke III and Kelly M. Young, for appellee.
2
___________
3

FRANCIS E. SWEENEY, SR., J. At issue in this case is whether Ohio's
4
Constitution or speedy-trial statute requires additional criminal charges filed in
5
a subsequent indictment to run from the date of defendant's original arrest,
6
with time tolled during the state's audits of seized evidence, or whether the
7
statute allows the state a new time period from the date of the subsequent
8
indictment. For the following reasons, we hold that in issuing a subsequent
9
indictment, the state is not subject to the speedy-trial timetable of the initial
10
indictment, when additional criminal charges arise from facts different from the
11
original charges, or the state did not know of these facts at the time of the
12
initial indictment.
13

The right to a speedy trial is guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment to the
14
United States Constitution and Section 10, Article I of the Ohio Constitution.
15
The individual states are obligated under the Fourteenth Amendment to afford
16
a person accused of a crime such a right. Klopfer v. North Carolina (1967),
17
386 U.S. 213, 222-223, 87 S.Ct. 988, 993, 18 L.Ed.2d 1, 7-8. However, the

5

1
states are free to prescribe a reasonable period of time to conform to
2
constitutional requirements. Barker v. Wingo (1972), 407 U.S. 514, 523, 92
3
S.Ct. 2182, 2188, 33 L.Ed.2d 101, 113. In response to this constitutional
4
mandate, Ohio has enacted R.C. 2945.71 to 2945.73, which designate specific
5
time requirements for the state to bring an accused to trial. Specifically, under
6
R.C. 2945.71(C)(2), a person against whom a charge of felony is pending must
7
be brought to trial within 270 days after his arrest.
8

In prior cases, we have dealt with the problem of multiple indictments in
9
relation to Ohio's speedy-trial statute. Specifically, we have held that
10
subsequent charges made against an accused would be subject to the same
11
speedy-trial constraints as the original charges, if additional charges arose from
12
the same facts as the first indictment. State v. Adams (1989), 43 Ohio St.3d 67,
13
68, 538 N.E.2d 1025, 1027. In Adams, the defendant was initially charged with
14
having a concentration of ten-hundredths of one gram or more by weight of
15
alcohol per two-hundred-ten liters of his breath in violation of R.C.
16
4511.19(A)(3). At the time, defendant waived the time limitation for trial for a
17
total of thirty-five days, but the state eventually decided to nolle this initial

6

1
charge. Subsequently, the state filed a second complaint against defendant,
2
charging him with operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of
3
alcohol in violation of R.C. 4511.19(A)(1). In applying the same ninety-day
4
time period to both charges, we held: "`When new and additional charges arise
5
from the same facts as did the original charge and the state knew of such facts
6
at the time of the initial indictment, the time within which trial is to begin on
7
the additional charge is subject to the same statutory limitations period that is
8
applied to the original charge.'" Id.
9

Applying this standard to the instant case, we find that in issuing a
10
second indictment against the defendant, the state was not subject to the
11
speedy-trial time limits of the original indictment, since the subsequent charges
12
were based on new and additional facts which the state had no knowledge of at
13
the time of the original indictment. Additional crimes based on different facts
14
should not be considered as arising from the same sequence of events for the
15
purposes of speedy-trial computation. See, e.g., State v. Singleton (C.P.1987),
16
38 Ohio Misc.2d 13, 526 N.E.2d 121.

7

1

The original charges against Baker resulted from an investigation by law
2
enforcement agents using informants to illegally purchase prescription drugs
3
from Baker's pharmacies. These original charges were based on the controlled
4
buys that occurred before Baker's arrest on June 10, 1993, and the search of
5
Baker's two pharmacies. After executing search warrants at Baker's two
6
pharmacies, the state began investigating Baker's pharmaceutical records to
7
determine if additional violations had occurred. As a result of its analysis of
8
the records seized on June 10, 1993, the state filed additional charges of drug
9
trafficking and Medicaid fraud, which the state could not have known of until
10
both audits of Baker's records were completed.
11

To require the state to bring additional charges within the time period of
12
the original indictment, when the state could not have had any knowledge of
13
the additional charges until investigating later-seized evidence, would
14
undermine the state's ability to prosecute elaborate or complex crimes. In so
15
holding, we recognize that in construing the speedy-trial statutes, we must
16
balance the rights of an accused with the public's interest in "obtaining
17
convictions of persons who have committed criminal offenses against the

8

1
state." State v. Bonarrigo (1980), 62 Ohio St.2d 7, 11, 16 O.O.3d 4, 6-7, 402
2
N.E.2d 530, 534.
3

Since the charges in the second indictment stem from additional facts
4
which the state did not know of before the audits, the state should be accorded
5
a new 270-day period beginning from the time when the second indictment was
6
returned on June 1, 1994. When additional criminal charges arise from facts
7
distinct from those supporting an original charge, or the state was unaware of
8
such facts at that time, the state is not required to bring the accused to trial
9
within the same statutory period as the original charge under R.C. 2945.71 et
10
seq. Therefore, the court of appeals erred in dismissing the second indictment
11
against Baker, the judgment of the court of appeals as to this issue is reversed,
12
and the conviction is reinstated.
13
Judgment reversed
14
and conviction reinstated.
15

MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, PFEIFER, COOK and LUNDBERG
16
STRATTON, JJ., concur.
17

9