Case Title: State v. Belville

Citation: 2022-Ohio-3879

Docket Number: 2021-0483

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2022-11-02T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as State 
v. Belville, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-3879.] 
 
 
 
 
NOTICE 
This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in an 
advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports.  Readers are requested to 
promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 65 
South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or other 
formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be made before 
the opinion is published. 
 
 
SLIP OPINION NO. 2022-OHIO-3879 
THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLEE, v. BELVILLE, APPELLANT. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as State v. Belville, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-3879.] 
Criminal law—Statutory speedy-trial right—Defendant’s request for discovery 
operates as a tolling event pursuant to R.C. 2945.72(E) for the time the state 
reasonably needs to fulfill defendant’s request—Trial court not required to 
contemporaneously identify tolling events on the record—Court of appeals’ 
judgment affirmed. 
(No. 2021-0483—Submitted March 30, 2022—Decided November 2, 2022.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Lawrence County, 
No. 19CA27, 2021-Ohio-820. 
_________________ 
 
DEWINE, J. 
{¶ 1} Under Ohio’s Speedy Trial Statute, a person accused of a felony has 
the right to be brought to trial within 270 days of his arrest.  When the accused is 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
2 
held in jail awaiting trial, each day is counted as three.  The time can be paused, or 
tolled, if certain circumstances occur.  We have long recognized that when a 
defendant requests discovery, time is tolled while the state responds to the request. 
{¶ 2} David Belville was arrested for drug trafficking.  He alleges that a 
total of 283 days elapsed for speedy-trial purposes before he was brought to trial, 
violating his statutory speedy-trial right.  The state maintains that no violation 
occurred because much of the time was tolled while it responded to Belville’s 
discovery request. 
{¶ 3} The disagreement stems from the fact that the state did not provide 
discovery in one batch.  Instead, the state provided Belville with most of the 
discovery the day after he requested it, but it took longer to copy and deliver the 
contents of a digital video recorder (“DVR”).  Belville had used this DVR as part 
of a home-surveillance system.  The state contends that the speedy-trial time was 
tolled from the time Belville made his discovery request until it provided the copy 
of the DVR footage; Belville says the tolling period ended when the state provided 
its initial response to discovery. 
{¶ 4} We conclude that Belville’s request for discovery operated as a tolling 
event for the time that the state reasonably needed to respond to the request, 
which—under the facts of this case—included the time needed to provide a copy 
of the DVR footage.  That tolling event lasted for more than 13 days, meaning that 
Belville’s time awaiting trial did not exceed 270 days, and therefore, the state did 
not violate his statutory speedy-trial right. 
I. Background 
{¶ 5} On July 17, 2019, Belville was arrested for his involvement in drug 
trafficking.  He was let out of jail to receive medical treatment on July 19.  Police 
later rearrested Belville and returned him to jail on September 3, where he would 
remain. 
 
 
January Term, 2022 
 
 
3 
A. Belville requests discovery 
{¶ 6} On September 16, Belville filed a request for discovery.  The state 
responded the next day.  It provided Belville with much of its file on the case, 
totaling some 1,200 pages.  In response to a request for “any and all evidence * * * 
favorable to the Defendant and material to guilt or punishment,” the state replied: 
“The State is in possession of evidence favorable to Defendant; State is in 
possession of an HD DVR that is still currently being reviewed.” 
{¶ 7} The DVR was connected to four cameras that monitored the inside 
and outside of Belville’s home.  It contained a hard drive on which video 
surveillance footage captured by the cameras was stored.  According to the state, 
the DVR contained “months” of footage. 
{¶ 8} On September 18—the day after the state provided its initial 
discovery response—the trial court held its first pretrial conference.  At the 
conference, the court brought up the DVR footage that the state had referred to in 
its discovery response.  (The court was familiar with the DVR and its contents 
because it was also handling several other cases involving Belville’s associates in 
the drug operation.)   Due to the large volume of footage on the DVR, the court 
explained that Belville’s attorney had “two options.”  He could go to the 
prosecutor’s office and watch the video or the state could attempt to transfer the 
footage to another DVR so that defense counsel could watch the “hours and hours 
of this footage” at his convenience.  Everybody agreed that the first option was not 
practical.  The court explained that defense counsel would “need a key to the 
Prosecutor’s office” and defense counsel quipped, “And I’ll need a cot.” 
{¶ 9} Thus, defense counsel decided that “the best approach would be [for 
the state] to, at least, attempt to * * * transfer [the footage] over if that’s possible.”  
At oral argument, counsel for the state explained that making a copy of the DVR 
footage was more complicated than reproducing video files using the latest 
technology.  He noted that the state could not simply upload the data onto a 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
4 
computer or an ordinary portable-storage device, such as a thumb drive.  Instead, 
counsel explained, the state had to arrange to purchase a second DVR and then copy 
the first DVR’s hard drive onto the hard drive of the second device. 
{¶ 10} Over the five weeks that proceeded the initial pretrial conference, 
the court held three more status conferences.  At each conference, the parties 
discussed with the court the state’s progress in reviewing and copying the DVR 
footage.  On October 9, the state indicated that it was still in the process of 
reviewing the DVR footage and determining if it was possible to make a copy that 
would be acceptable to defense counsel.  The parties and the court also discussed, 
once again, the option for defense counsel to review the video in the prosecutor’s 
office.  They also considered how the defense would be able to verify that any copy 
was “true and accurate.” 
{¶ 11} On October 23, the state informed Belville and his counsel that it 
had been able to obtain another DVR and transfer the footage.  On October 29—43 
days after the initial discovery request—the state delivered a copy of the DVR to 
defense counsel.  In addition, the state provided a copy of the notes that its 
investigators had taken while reviewing the video in order to “help streamline” 
defense counsel’s review of the footage. 
B. Belville claims a speedy-trial violation and seeks dismissal 
{¶ 12} On November 19, the day before trial was set to begin, Belville 
moved to dismiss the case based on an alleged violation of his statutory speedy-
trial right.  He argued that the state was required to bring him to trial within 270 
days but that he had been awaiting trial for 46 days while out on bond and 79 days 
while in jail (triple-counted as 237 days), for a total of 283 days—not accounting 
for any tolling events.  He conceded that the state was entitled to toll time while it 
responded to discovery.  However, Belville maintained that because the state filed 
its initial discovery response the day after he requested discovery, the time was 
tolled for only one day.  Belville was in jail on that day, so it would have been 
January Term, 2022 
 
 
5 
triple-counted; Belville thus asserted that a minimum of 280 days had elapsed for 
speedy-trial purposes. 
{¶ 13} The state argued that the speedy-trial time had been tolled under two 
different theories.  First, the state argued that tolling occurred for the time necessary 
to respond to Belville’s discovery request, spanning from the time the request was 
made to the date the state provided the DVR copy to Belville.  Additionally, the 
state argued that time had been tolled because Belville’s request for discovery 
imposed a reciprocal duty on Belville to provide discovery to the state under 
Crim.R. 16.  According to the state, Belville never fulfilled this reciprocal duty.  In 
the state’s opinion, then, time was tolled under this theory for a reasonable time, 
which it viewed as at least thirty days.  The trial court orally denied Belville’s 
motion, noting that it was “reasonable” for the court to ensure that the DVR footage 
was copied and provided to Belville.  The court also pointed out that it had given 
defense counsel the option of reviewing the footage in the prosecutor’s office.  
Thereafter, Belville took a plea deal under which he tendered a plea of no contest 
to a single felony count.  He was sentenced to prison and subsequently appealed. 
{¶ 14} The Fourth District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s denial 
of Belville’s motion to dismiss.  It concluded that the speedy-trial time had been 
tolled for the 43-day period between Belville’s request for discovery and the state’s 
delivery of the DVR copy.  2021-Ohio-820, ¶ 18-19.  The appellate court reasoned 
that the 43-day delay was reasonable because the DVR footage was voluminous 
and difficult to transfer.  Id. at ¶ 17.  The court also noted that there was “no 
evidence of dilatory or bad faith action by the State” but rather, that the state “went 
to great lengths to provide this discovery as quickly as possible.”  Id.  Due to this 
tolling event, the court of appeals concluded that the time for the state to bring 
Belville to trial had not expired.  Id. at ¶ 19. 
{¶ 15} The court further concluded that the speedy-trial time had been tolled 
while the state waited for Belville’s reciprocal discovery.  In reaching that 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
6 
determination, the court observed that time tolls under R.C. 2945.72(D) for “ ‘[a]ny 
period of delay occasioned by the neglect or improper act of the accused.’ ”  
(Emphasis deleted.) 2021-Ohio-820 at ¶ 10, quoting R.C. 2945.72(D).  The court 
found that Belville’s failure to notify the state that he had no discovery to produce 
was neglectful and counted as an additional tolling event.  Id. at ¶ 27. 
{¶ 16} Belville appealed to this court, and we accepted jurisdiction.  163 
Ohio St.3d 1490, 2021-Ohio-2097, 169 N.E.3d 1268.  He argues that the court of 
appeals erred in concluding that his speedy-trial time was tolled (1) while the state 
copied the DVR and (2) while the state waited for him to provide reciprocal 
discovery.  Our conclusion that Belville’s speedy-trial time was tolled while the 
state responded to his discovery request makes it unnecessary to reach the second 
issue. 
II. Analysis 
{¶ 17} This case concerns Belville’s speedy-trial right as codified in R.C. 
2945.71.1  In felony cases, the statute requires the state to bring a defendant to trial 
within 270 days of his arrest.  R.C. 2945.71(C)(2).  No one disputes that after 
applying the triple-count provision for the days that Belville was incarcerated, see 
R.C. 2945.71(E), Belville was entitled to credit for 283 days awaiting trial without 
counting tolling events.  The question is how much of that time was tolled. 
A. Belville’s speedy-trial time was tolled by his request for discovery 
{¶ 18} R.C. 2945.72 sets forth a number of circumstances that will toll the 
statutory speedy-trial time.  Two are relevant in this case.  First, time is tolled for 
 
1.  In addition to his statutory argument, Belville’s propositions of law refer to the right to a speedy 
trial enshrined in Article 1, Section 10 of the Ohio Constitution and the Sixth Amendment to the 
United States Constitution.  The test for a constitutional violation is different than for a statutory 
one.  Compare Vermont v. Brillon, 556 U.S. 81, 89-90, 129 S.Ct. 1283, 173 L.Ed.2d 231 (2009) 
with R.C. 2945.71.  But, at no point in the proceedings below or in his briefing before this court has 
Belville developed an argument under the applicable standard for a constitutional violation.  
Because Belville’s argument is limited to Ohio’s Speedy Trial Statute, the constitutional argument 
has been forfeited and will not be considered.  
January Term, 2022 
 
 
7 
“[a]ny period of delay necessitated by reason of a plea in bar or abatement, motion, 
proceeding, or action made or instituted by the accused.”  R.C. 2945.72(E).  
Second, time is tolled for “[a]ny period of delay occasioned by the neglect or 
improper act of the accused.”  R.C. 2945.72(D). 
{¶ 19} In State v. Brown, 98 Ohio St.3d 121, 2002-Ohio-7040, 781 N.E.2d 
159, ¶ 23, this court held that “the most sensible interpretation of R.C. 2945.72(E)” 
is that when a defendant requests discovery, the request operates as a tolling event.  
“Discovery requests,” we explained, “divert the attention of prosecutors from 
preparing their case for trial, thus necessitating delay.”  Id.  Further, a contrary rule 
would force prosecutors “to make hurried responses to discovery requests to avoid 
violating the speedy-trial statute.”  Id.  We also noted that the purpose of R.C. 
2945.71 was “ ‘to prevent inexcusable delays caused by indolence within the 
judicial system,’ ” id. at ¶ 24, quoting State v. Ladd, 56 Ohio St.2d 197, 200, 383 
N.E.2d 579 (1978), and we found nothing in Brown that “suggest[ed] that indolence 
contributed to the delay,”  id. 
{¶ 20} We have never set forth a precise number of days in which the state 
must respond to a discovery request for purposes of tolling.  In the context of a 
motion in limine, we have said that “R.C. 2945.72(E) implicitly recognizes that 
when a motion is filed by a defendant, there is a ‘period of delay necessitated’—at 
the very least, for a reasonable time until the motion is responded to and ruled 
upon.”  State v. Sanchez, 110 Ohio St.3d 274, 2006-Ohio-4478, 853 N.E.2d 283,  
¶ 26. 
{¶ 21} We see no reason why a similar standard should not apply to a 
defendant’s discovery request.  A discovery request tolls speedy-trial time for a 
reasonable amount of time necessary to allow the state to respond to the request.  
What is reasonable will necessarily be a case-by-case determination and depend on 
the totality of the circumstances.  It might be influenced, for instance, by the 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
8 
complexity of the discovery requested, the good or bad faith of the state, or the 
steps the state must take to comply with the request. 
{¶ 22} We also note that when a defendant believes that the state has been 
dilatory in providing discovery, the best course is for the defendant to promptly 
bring the matter to the trial court’s attention by filing a motion to compel discovery.  
The trial court is the tribunal in the best position to assess the underlying facts and 
supervise the discovery process.  A motion to compel discovery affords the trial 
court the opportunity to determine in the first instance whether discovery is being 
unduly delayed and to ensure that the defendant’s speedy-trial rights are protected. 
B. The state responded within a reasonable time to Belville’s request 
{¶ 23} Turning to the facts of this case, there is nothing to indicate that the 
state failed to respond to Belville’s discovery request within a reasonable time.  The 
state provided its initial response to Belville the day after he made his discovery 
request.  That response identified the DVR footage as responsive to Belville’s 
request.  At the hearing the next day, the parties specifically discussed the DVR 
footage and the most efficient manner for Belville’s counsel to review the footage.  
At the status conferences that followed, the state continued to update the court and 
Belville’s counsel on the steps it was taking to make the footage available to 
Belville.  Belville’s counsel never complained about the pace of the state’s 
production, never suggested that he wished to forgo review of the footage, and 
never took the trial court up on its offer to watch the DVR footage at the 
prosecutor’s office. 
{¶ 24} The trial court in this case took a hands-on role in managing the 
discovery process and was intimately familiar with the state’s efforts to make the 
DVR footage available to defense counsel.  Although it did not issue a written 
opinion, the trial court’s oral comments in denying Belville’s motion strongly 
suggest that it found the state’s conduct and timeliness in responding to the 
discovery request to be reasonable.  So do we. 
January Term, 2022 
 
 
9 
{¶ 25} Perhaps one could quibble that the state should have been able to 
produce the DVR footage in less than 43 days.  But even if we were to assume that 
43 days was a bit longer than necessary on these facts, we would not find a speedy-
trial violation.  Two hundred eighty-three days of speedy-trial time elapsed while 
Belville awaited trial, without accounting for tolled time.  To avoid a speedy-trial 
violation, the state needed to establish that 13 days were tolled.  Because Belville 
was in jail when he made his discovery request, each day was triple-counted.  Thus, 
the state needed only to show that five of these triple-counted days were tolled.2  
Given the difficulty of copying the DVR footage, the state could not reasonably 
have been expected to deliver a copy of the DVR footage within the five triple-
counted days that followed Belville’s request. 
{¶ 26} Tellingly, Belville does not contend that the amount of time it took 
the state to produce the DVR footage was unreasonable.  Instead, he argues that the 
DVR constituted “supplemental discovery” and that the tolling for discovery ended 
when the state provided its initial disclosure the day after his request.  Belville 
characterizes the DVR footage as “supplemental” because it was delivered after the 
state’s initial batch of discovery and because Crim.R. 16(A) states that “all parties 
have a continuing duty to supplement their disclosures.”  Belville submits that it 
would be problematic to allow the state to toll time based on supplemental 
disclosures because “piecemeal discovery disclosure could affirmatively be used 
by the state to undermine defendants’ speedy trial rights.”  As his argument goes, 
the state would be able to nullify a defendant’s speedy-trial-time credits by simply 
filing occasional supplements to its discovery response. 
 
2.  The opinion concurring only in judgment says that it does not “agree with the majority’s 
insinuation that R.C. 2945.71(E)’s triple-count provision can render the prosecution’s delay more 
or less reasonable.”  Opinion concurring in judgment only, ¶ 41.  We insinuate nothing of the sort; 
we deal in basic math.  When a day is tolled, it doesn’t count for speedy-trial purposes.  So, if time 
is tolled for any of the triple-counted days when Belville was in jail, the triple-counted day doesn’t 
count against the state for speedy-trial purposes.   
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
10 
{¶ 27} The problem with Belville’s argument is that this case does not 
involve a supplemental disclosure.  The state identified the DVR as responsive to 
Belville’s request in its initial disclosure.  And given that it was said to contain 
evidence favorable to Belville, the DVR easily fit within the scope of the initial 
discovery request.  On top of that, when the parties discussed the DVR footage at 
the first pretrial conference, Belville’s attorney specifically requested a copy. 
{¶ 28} Nor are we persuaded by Belville’s concern that in a different case 
the state might use piecemeal discovery in bad faith to toll a defendant’s speedy-
trial time.  As we have said, the state has only the reasonable amount of time it 
needs to respond to a defendant’s discovery request.  If the state were to drag its 
feet and respond after an unreasonable amount of time, the time lost due to the 
undue delay would not be tolled.  That “period of delay” would not be 
“necessitated” by the action of the defendant, R.C. 2945.72(E), but rather, it would 
be due to the dilatoriness of the state. 
C. The trial court did not need to make a contemporaneous finding that 
the speedy-trial time was tolled during discovery 
{¶ 29} As a final matter, Belville asserts that the trial court was not 
permitted to make an after-the-fact determination that discovery was a tolling event.  
The trial court did not determine that Belville’s speedy-trial time had been tolled 
until it made its ruling on his motion to dismiss.  But nowhere in R.C. 2945.72 does 
it say that courts must identify tolling events as they arise.  And in practice, courts 
routinely identify tolling events for the first time when ruling on speedy-trial 
motions.  See, e.g., State v. Miller, 6th Dist. Huron No. H-07-015, 2008-Ohio-379, 
¶ 2-3,7; State v. Lacy, 46 Ohio App.2d 215, 215-216, 348 N.E.2d 381 (7th 
Dist.1975); State v. Aderhold, 9th Dist. Medina No. 07CA0047-M, 2008-Ohio-
1772, ¶ 3, 5, 18.  Indeed, Brown concerned a tolling event—the defendant’s request 
for discovery—that was not identified until the appeal.  See Brown, 98 Ohio St.3d 
121, 2002-Ohio-7040, 781 N.E.2d 159, at ¶ 4. 
January Term, 2022 
 
 
11 
{¶ 30} In making his argument against after-the-fact tolling determinations, 
Belville relies on State v. King, 70 Ohio St.3d 158, 162, 637 N.E.2d 903 (1994), 
but that case involved a different issue.  Specifically, King dealt with the 
requirement that when a trial court sua sponte continues a trial date beyond the 
speedy-trial period, it must issue a journal entry setting forth the continuance and 
the reason therefor prior to the expiration of the speedy-trial period.  Id. at 162-163.  
Because the trial court failed to issue a journal entry continuing the case in King, 
we held the state could not rely on the court’s oral postponement of the trial date as 
a tolling event.  Id. 
{¶ 31} Nothing in King requires a trial court to contemporaneously identify 
every tolling event on the record.  Moreover, the plain terms of R.C. 2945.72(E) 
refute Belville’s position.  That statute simply provides that “[a]ny period of delay 
necessitated by reason of a * * * motion, proceeding, or action made or instituted 
by the accused” shall constitute a tolling event.  Id.  Thus, all that the statute requires 
is that the delay be necessitated by the defendant’s action.  It does not impose a 
requirement that a trial court contemporaneously announce that a tolling event is 
taking place. 
III. Conclusion 
{¶ 32} The state did not violate Belville’s speedy-trial rights.  Belville’s 
request for discovery operated as a tolling event for the time that the state 
reasonably needed to fulfill his request, and that included the time that it took to 
provide Belville with a copy of the DVR.  Because this resolves the case, we do not 
address whether Belville’s failure to provide reciprocal discovery also operated as 
a tolling event.  We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals. 
 Judgment affirmed. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and KENNEDY, FISCHER, DONNELLY, and BRUNNER, JJ., 
concur. 
STEWART, J., concurs in judgment only, with an opinion. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
12 
_________________ 
STEWART, J., concurring in judgment only. 
{¶ 33} The court’s decision in this case depends entirely on the court’s 
holding in State v. Brown, 98 Ohio St.3d 121, 2002-Ohio-7040, 781 N.E.2d 159,  
¶ 23, that a defendant’s discovery request tolls the time in which a defendant must 
be brought to trial under Ohio’s Speedy Trial Statute, R.C. 2945.71 through 
2945.73.  Although I agree that Brown is the relevant authority to be applied in this 
case, I question whether Brown was correctly decided and whether its holding needs 
to be revisited.  Additionally, I disagree with the majority’s use of the Speedy Trial 
Statute’s triple-count provision to minimize the length of the state’s delay in turning 
over discovery.  For these reasons, I concur in judgment only. 
This court’s decision in Brown 
{¶ 34} Nothing in R.C. 2945.71 through 2945.73 explicitly states that 
speedy-trial time tolls between the time that a defendant requests discovery and 
when the state responds to that request.  This concept, first announced in Brown, 
comes from this court’s interpretation of R.C. 2945.72(E), a statutory provision 
stating that speedy-trial time is tolled for “[a]ny period of delay necessitated by 
reason of a plea in bar or abatement, motion, proceeding, or action made or 
instituted by the accused.”  Despite acknowledging in Brown that the Speedy Trial 
Statute provides a defendant with the right to be brought to trial within a certain 
amount of time, id. at ¶ 14, and that the question before the court was one of first 
impression, id. at ¶ 22, this court’s analysis in support of its holding that a 
defendant’s request for discovery tolls speedy-trial time was limited to a single 
paragraph: 
 
Discovery requests by a defendant divert the attention of 
prosecutors from preparing their case for trial, thus necessitating 
delay.  If no tolling is permitted, a defendant could attempt to cause 
January Term, 2022 
 
 
13 
a speedy-trial violation by filing discovery requests just before trial.  
Courts could grant case-by-case exceptions but would then be in the 
unenviable position of deciding how close to trial is too close to 
request additional discovery.  Further, prosecutors could be forced 
to make hurried responses to discovery requests to avoid violating 
the speedy-trial statute.  We conclude that allowing a defendant’s 
discovery requests to toll the running of the speedy-trial period is 
the most sensible interpretation of R.C. 2945.72(E). 
 
Id. at ¶ 23. 
{¶ 35} There is an argument to be made that Brown was wrongly decided.  
Although “ ‘[t]here is no general constitutional right to discovery in a criminal 
case,’ ”  State v. Hale, 119 Ohio St.3d 118, 2008-Ohio-3426, 892 N.E.2d 864,  
¶ 120, quoting Weatherford v. Bursey, 429 U.S. 545, 559, 97 S.Ct. 837, 51 L.Ed.2d 
30 (1977), a defendant does have a due-process right to be provided with certain 
evidence by the prosecutor, see Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 
10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963) (“the suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable 
to an accused upon request violates due process where the evidence is material 
either to guilt or to punishment”).  Additionally, Crim.R. 16 provides the defendant 
and the state the right to reciprocal discovery.  The purpose of Crim.R. 16 is, among 
other things, “to provide all parties in a criminal case with the information 
necessary for a full and fair adjudication of the facts” and “to protect the integrity 
of the justice system and the rights of defendants.”  Crim.R. 16(A).  The right to 
reciprocal discovery under Crim.R. 16 is triggered by the defendant’s request for 
discovery from the prosecution, and “[o]nce discovery is initiated by demand of the 
defendant, all parties have a continuing duty to supplement their disclosures.”  Id.  
What Crim.R. 16 thus recognizes—as does Brady, albeit to a more limited extent—
is that a defendant’s access to discovery is fundamental to the fairness of a criminal 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
14 
trial and the integrity of the criminal-justice system.  See Crim.R. 16(A); Brady at 
87. 
{¶ 36} This court’s holding in Brown, 98 Ohio St.3d 121, 2002-Ohio-7040, 
781 N.E.2d 159, at ¶ 23—that a demand for discovery under Crim.R. 16 constitutes 
a “period of delay necessitated by reason of a * * * motion, proceeding, or action 
made or instituted by the accused” under R.C. 2945.72(E)—is a stretch given 
Crim.R. 16’s and Brady’s recognition that a criminal defendant has the right to the 
discovery of information in the prosecution’s possession and given that the way to 
exercise this right is by asking for that information.  Viewed in its proper light, the 
time the prosecution spends responding to a defendant’s request for discovery can 
hardly be considered a period of delay “necessitated” by the accused; rather, it 
appears to be one necessitated by the criminal prosecution itself.  See State v. 
Palmer, 112 Ohio St.3d 457, 2007-Ohio-374, 860 N.E.2d 1011, ¶ 18, quoting 
Lakewood v. Papadelis, 32 Ohio St.3d 1, 3, 511 N.E.2d 1138 (1987) (“ ‘The overall 
purpose [of criminal discovery rules] is to produce a fair trial’ ”). 
{¶ 37} This court’s rationale for its holding in Brown fails to hold up in 
other ways as well, some of which were explained by Judge William Hoffman in 
his concurring opinion in State v. Cook, 5th Dist. Licking No. 03-CA-0019, 2003-
Ohio-5589.  In that case, Judge Hoffman agreed with the majority’s resolution of 
the case based on Brown’s holding that a demand for discovery tolls speedy-trial 
time; he nevertheless urged this court to reconsider its decision in Brown.  Judge 
Hoffman explained:  
 
Crim.R. 16 distinguishes requests for discovery from 
motions for discovery.  A request for discovery does not involve any 
intervention by the court and does not necessitate delay on the part 
of the court in the scheduling of the trial.  I concede a request for 
discovery may necessitate delay by diverting the attention of 
January Term, 2022 
 
 
15 
prosecutors from preparing their case for trial.  I say “may” because 
preparing a discovery response seems to be an integral part [of the] 
process of preparing for trial and often times requires only a minimal 
amount of time and effort.  My experience is in many cases the 
discovery response is prepared by administrative staff and only 
reviewed by the prosecutor for approval and signature.  The delay 
necessitated by the response is often minimal, if any.  If the 
prosecution felt the time spent preparing its discovery response 
hampered its ability to prepare for trial, it could move to continue 
the trial and any time during such continuances would be tolled 
under R.C. 2945.72(H). 
 I find the Supreme Court’s concern over the timing of the 
discovery request most significant.  Any last minute attempt by a 
defendant to cause a speedy trial violation by filing discovery 
requests just before trial is prohibited by Crim.R. 16(F).3  The rule 
provides a defendant must make his motion for discovery within 
twenty-one days after arraignment or seven days before the date of 
trial, whichever is earlier, or at such reasonable time later as the 
court may permit.  Because a motion for discovery must be preceded 
by a demand [request] for discovery, it is axiomatic a defendant’s 
request for discovery must be made, at the latest, seven days before 
trial.  If made thereafter, the request would be untimely and not 
require continuance of an otherwise timely scheduled trial.  If the 
defendant is unprepared to proceed to trial without discovery after 
having timely requested it, the defendant would then move the trial 
court to compel discovery and/or continue the case.  In such a 
 
3.  Crim.R. 16 was revised in 2010.  See 125 Ohio St.3d LXXXV, XC.  The language of former 
Crim.R. 16(F), see 34 Ohio St.2d xix, lvii, is now reflected in Crim.R. 16(M). 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
16 
scenario, the speedy trial limit would be tolled by the defendant’s 
motion and not his mere request for discovery. 
By tolling the time period between the discovery request and 
response, there is no incentive for the prosecutor to promptly 
respond to the request.  The prosecution could deliberately choose 
to delay its discovery response forcing the accused to file a motion 
for discovery and to secure a court order compelling the prosecution 
to provide it.  If a defendant is in jail, such delay could provide a 
tactic to induce a plea.  The end result is a defendant is forced to 
give up a portion of his or her statutory right to a speedy trial if the 
defendant chooses to exercise his or her right to discovery under 
Crim.R. 16.  The defendant should not be forced to surrender one 
right to enforce another. 
 
(Footnote added and second brackets sic.)  Id. at ¶ 14-16 (Hoffman, J., concurring 
in judgment only). 
{¶ 38} Additionally, the language contained in R.C. 2945.72(E)—that the 
speedy-trial period is tolled by “[a]ny period of delay necessitated by reason of a 
plea in bar or abatement, motion, proceeding, or action made or instituted by the 
accused”—indicates that the period is meant to be tolled only when formal legal 
activity is undertaken by the defendant that requires a trial court’s ruling or 
attention.  For instance, pleas in bar or abatement must be raised by the defendant 
in a pretrial motion that is filed with the trial court, see Crim.R. 12(C),4 and the trial 
court has an obligation to decide the matter, see Crim.R. 12(F).  See also R.C. 
 
4.  In State v. Dukles, 9th Dist. Medina No. 12CA0100-M, 2013-Ohio-5263, ¶ 9, the Ninth District 
Court of Appeals explained that following the adoption of Crim.R. 11(A)—which limits pleas that 
a criminal defendant may enter to not guilty, not guilty by reason of insanity, guilty, or no contest—
pleas in bar or abatement are no longer raised as a “plea” to the charges but instead are raised as 
either a defense or objection to the charges in a pretrial motion to dismiss. 
January Term, 2022 
 
 
17 
2943.06 (plea in bar); R.C. 2941.55 (plea in abatement).  Similarly, R.C. 
2945.72(E)’s reference to a “motion,” “proceeding,” or “action” suggests some 
formal court filing or request made by the defendant that requires a court’s time 
and attention to resolve.  But a defendant’s request for discovery pursuant to 
Crim.R. 16 does not require the trial court to take any action.  See Papadelis, 32 
Ohio St.3d at 3, 511 N.E.2d 1138 (“Crim.R. 16 contemplates an informal step—
that being the demand or written request for discovery of one party upon another 
party.  It does not require court intervention”).  Under the rule, once the defendant 
requests discovery from the prosecution, the prosecution has an obligation to 
provide that discovery to the defendant or otherwise notify the court why the 
information is being withheld.  See Crim.R. 16(A), (B), and (E).  While the 
defendant may file a motion with the court to compel compliance with the rule if 
he or she believes that the prosecution is wrongfully withholding or delaying its 
disclosures, the rule does not require the defendant to file a motion to compel as a 
matter of course.  See Papadelis at 3-4; see also Crim.R. 16(M).  Thus, it seems 
unlikely that the legislature intended to include a defendant’s request for discovery 
within the parameters of R.C. 2945.72(E) when, unlike a request for discovery, all 
other tolling events specifically listed in the statute require court intervention. 
{¶ 39} Lastly, the holding in Brown undermines some of the goals of the 
Speedy Trial Statute.  Without questioning its soundness, the majority opinion 
repeats and reaffirms the statement made in Brown that the purpose behind the 
Speedy Trial Statute is “ ‘ “to prevent inexcusable delays caused by indolence 
within the [criminal] judicial system.” ’ ”  Majority opinion, ¶ 19, quoting Brown, 
98 Ohio St.3d 121, 2002-Ohio-7040, 781 N.E.2d 159, at ¶ 24, quoting State v. Ladd, 
56 Ohio St.2d 197, 200, 383 N.E.2d 579 (1978).  But Ladd, the original source for 
this statement, fails to provide any citation to authority.  See id. at 200.  This renders 
the original declaration in Ladd suspect, as well as this court’s continued reliance 
on it.  But even if Ohio’s Speedy Trial Statute does exist to prevent inexcusable 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
18 
delays and indolence, it is clear from the statute’s language that this is not the only 
reason it exists.  Under the Speedy Trial Statute, a person accused of committing a 
felony can be discharged if not brought to trial within 270 days after arrest.  See 
R.C. 2945.71(C)(2) and 2945.73(B).  An accused is given triple credit, however, 
for the days during that interim that he is held in jail on the pending charge.  R.C. 
2945.71(E).  The drastic distinction in speedy-trial time calculations between those 
held in jail and those released on bond makes clear that the General Assembly 
intended that the statutory speedy-trial provisions do more than just discourage 
indolence in the criminal-justice system—the legislature also wanted to discourage 
and prevent lengthy pretrial detention of people presumed to be innocent under the 
law.  In other words, the statute appears to exist, at least in part, to promote and 
uphold the presumption of innocence with the understanding that a person should 
not be punished until proven guilty.  This court’s decision in Brown ignores and 
undercuts this aspect of the Speedy Trial Statute. 
{¶ 40} The holding in Brown is undoubtedly based on tenuous reasoning.  
However, the principal ground for suggesting that this court revisit the holding is 
more or less a practical one: it will save time and resources.  In the two decades 
since Brown was decided, there has been a proliferation in litigation over whether 
a defendant is entitled to have the charges against him or her dismissed based on 
statutory speedy-trial rights.  This is likely because defendants have no clear way 
of knowing how much time has been tolled.  This of course results in trial courts 
and appellate courts spending significant time and attention reviewing questions 
about what amount of time constitutes a reasonable delay under the circumstances; 
it also opens the door for additional, more difficult questions, like the one that 
remains unanswered by the majority here—whether supplemental discovery 
disclosures toll speedy-trial time, see majority opinion at ¶ 26. 
 
 
January Term, 2022 
 
 
19 
The triple-count provision is not intended to benefit the state 
{¶ 41} Moving past my concerns with Brown, I do not agree with the 
majority’s insinuation that R.C. 2945.71(E)’s triple-count provision can render the 
prosecution’s delay more or less reasonable.  Regarding this issue, the majority 
states:  
 
Two hundred eighty-three days of speedy-trial time elapsed 
while Belville awaited trial, without accounting for tolled time.  To 
avoid a speedy-trial violation, the state needed to establish that 13 
days were tolled.  Because Belville was in jail when he made his 
discovery request, each day was triple-counted.  Thus, the state 
needed only to show that five of these triple-counted days were 
tolled.  Given the difficulty of copying the DVR footage, the state 
could not reasonably have been expected to deliver a copy of the 
DVR footage within the five triple-counted days that followed 
Belville’s request. 
 
(Footnote omitted.)  Majority opinion at ¶ 25. 
{¶ 42} As explained above, the triple-count provision in R.C. 2945.71(E) 
exists to ensure that the accused, who is innocent until proven guilty, is not 
subjected to lengthy pretrial incarceration.  The triple-count provision recognizes 
that pretrial deprivation of liberty comes with certain costs to the defendant that can 
be mitigated by bringing the defendant to trial sooner rather than later.  There is 
nothing in the Speedy Trial Statute that suggests that R.C. 2945.71(E)’s triple-count 
provision should benefit the state by permitting a court to discount the length of the 
state’s delay in a three-to-one fashion as the majority suggests here, or that the 
length of the state’s delay is made more or less reasonable by the fact that the state 
had only 90 days, instead of 270, to bring the defendant to trial. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
20 
Conclusion 
{¶ 43} Although I agree with the majority that this court’s decision in 
Brown is controlling on these facts, I question whether Brown was correctly 
decided.  This court should revisit its holding in Brown if the question is properly 
raised in the future.  Additionally, I do not agree with the majority that R.C. 
2945.71(E)’s triple-count provision should benefit the prosecution when 
determining whether the length of the prosecution’s delay in responding to a 
discovery request was reasonable.  For these reasons, I concur in judgment only. 
_________________ 
Brigham M. Anderson, Lawrence County Prosecuting Attorney, for 
appellee. 
Timothy Young, Ohio Public Defender, and Addison M. Spriggs, Assistant 
Public Defender, for appellant. 
Steven L. Taylor, urging affirmance for amicus curiae Ohio Prosecuting 
Attorneys Association. 
Raymond T. Faller, Hamilton County Public Defender, and Krista M. 
Gieske, Assistant Public Defender; Cullen Sweeney, Cuyahoga County Public 
Defender; and Russell S. Bensing, urging reversal for amici curiae Hamilton 
County Public Defender, Cuyahoga County Public Defender, and Ohio Association 
of Criminal Defense Lawyers. 
_________________