Court Opinion

ID: 9384103
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-31 19:06:03.869162+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:49.681118
License: Public Domain

[Cite as Toledo v. Spiess, 2023-Ohio-1099.]

                             IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
                                 SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
                                      LUCAS COUNTY

City of Toledo                                    Court of Appeals No. L-22-1176

        Appellant                                 Trial Court No. CRB21003379

v.

Terry Spiess                                      DECISION AND JUDGMENT

        Appellee                                  Decided: March 31, 2023

                                              *****

        Rebecca Facey, City of Toledo Chief Prosecuting Attorney, and
        Jimmie L. Jones, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.

        Jeremy W. Levy, for appellant.

                                              *****
        SULEK, J.

        {¶ 1} Appellant, the City of Toledo, appeals from a judgment entered by the

Toledo Municipal Court, dismissing a complaint against appellee, Terry Spiess, alleging

patient abuse or neglect in violation of R.C. 2903.34(A)(3). For the reasons that follow,

we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
                        Statement of the Case and Relevant Facts

       {¶ 2} On April 22, 2021, the City filed a complaint against Spiess, a respiratory

therapist, alleging patient abuse or neglect in violation of R.C. 2903.34(A)(3). The

charge arose from the death of a resident at Advanced Healthcare Center, a skilled

nursing facility, in July 2020. According to the complaint, Spiess, while providing care

to the ventilator-dependent victim, turned off the ventilator and then neglected to turn it

back on, resulting in the victim’s death.

       {¶ 3} Spiess formally requested discovery from the City pursuant to Crim.R.16 on

April 30, 2021. The City filed an initial response to this request on June 16, 2021.

       {¶ 4} Additionally, in a letter to the City dated May 2, 2021, Spiess requested

discovery related to the ventilator used by the patient in this case, a list of all people who

visited or provided care in the room on the date of the incident, and the patient’s medical

records. The City never responded to this request.

       {¶ 5} On March 15, 2022, Spiess filed a motion for additional discovery and

examination of exculpatory and mitigatory materials. In this motion, Spiess, citing

Crim.R. 16, Brady v. Maryland , 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), and

principles of Due Process, requested an order from the trial court permitting the

inspection of any ventilators that were seized by the Toledo Police in relation to this case,

the inspection and copying of various documents belonging to Advanced Healthcare, all

911, police, EMS, or fire reports prepared in relation to the alleged victim or to

circumstances of the alleged offense, pictures of the healthcare facility, the identity and

2.
location of, and chain of custody for, any ventilator seized by police in relation to the

alleged offense, documentation related to any ventilator seized by police in relation to the

alleged offense, and medical and other records pertaining to the alleged victim. The City

produced additional evidence in response to Spiess’s motion.

       {¶ 6} Finally, on May 9, 2022, Spiess gave notice of omissions in the City’s

production, but the City did not respond to this final request for additional discovery.

       {¶ 7} When the case was called for trial on July 27, 2022, Spiess made an oral

motion to dismiss, citing outstanding discovery and alleged Brady violations. The

following discussion took place on the record:

       [DEFENSE COUNSEL]: * * * I am making a motion at this time under

       Brady to dismiss this case.

                                            ***

       [DEFENSE COUNSEL]: I will file a written motion if requested by the

       Court. But at this time I’m making an oral motion to dismiss on the

       following grounds: This case was filed on April 22, 2021. Complaint was

       filed by the prosecutor in Toledo Municipal Court. On April 28, 2021, the

       warrant was withdrawn and a not guilty plea was entered and a motion for

       discovery was filed two days later on April 30, 2021. As of today’s date,

       July 27, 2022, I am still not in possession of all of the discovery that was

       requested, including exculpatory evidence that would show that my client

       was not culpable for the offense that he’s alleged to have committed.

3.
            To begin with, Your Honor, I have received some discovery in this

     case. And the discovery that I received is clearly a fraud that’s being

     attempted to be perpetrated on this Court. Specifically what I’m referring

     to is a document that took place – that was signed by my client subsequent

     to the allegation and then forged by an agent of the Advanced Healthcare

     systems to place the date prior to the incident. That document is clearly a

     forgery in an attempt to perpetrate a fraud upon the Court. I have requested

     from both Advanced Healthcare through subpoenas, as well as through my

     discovery with the Prosecutor’s Office, all of the charting from the alleged

     victim in this case, who passed away on the date of the incident, and I have

     been refused that information.

            According to the discovery, the defendant saw the patient at

     approximately eight a.m., but the patient was not pronounced deceased

     until after twelve o’clock p.m. I have requested numerous times the

     documentation supporting that other agents of the hospital saw the patient

     during that four-hour time period. Also, I have requested the chain of

     custody of the ventilator machine in an opportunity to inspect it, and that

     cannot be provided to me as well. So we don’t know who’s been tampering

     with the machine as this case has been pending for sixteen months, and we

     don’t even know where the machine is currently located.

4.
            As of today’s date, I did receive some medical records from the

     prosecutor with “counsel only” stamps on it, but this is clearly not what was

     requested through the discovery or through the subpoenas with Advanced

     Healthcare. * * *

                                           ***

            Since we have gone sixteen months now of this case, and we still

     have not received any discovery or the substantial components of the

     discovery that would provide the defendant with his ability to make a

     defense, we are requesting at this time that the case be dismissed.

     THE COURT: I’m going to give you a moment to think if there is anything

     else you want to put on the record.

     [DEFENSE COUNSEL]: The only other fact that is relevant is that the

     machine that was used had an alarm that was on it. And we have checked

     with the alarm system company, and they indicated that that alarm went off

     for four hours from the eight a.m. time that my client saw the patient until

     the noon time when the patient was deceased. That alarm had been muted

     by the hospital as part of their procedure. We believe that this action was

     reckless by the hospital and that the hospital should be investigated for

     these types of practices, potentially criminal activity. Thank you.

     THE COURT: Prosecutor.

5.
     [PROSECUTOR]: Thank you, Your Honor. The City strongly objects to a

     dismissal at this juncture, especially because we did turn over a large pile of

     discovery. We’ve turned over what we have. I don’t have information as

     to what may or may not have yet been turned over from this health center.

            As for the Brady violations and things that are being alleged, I feel

     those would be much better fleshed out in writing in a brief, give the City

     an opportunity to respond to the allegations that are being put forth. And

     we want to pursue this case in a just manner.

     THE COURT: This is a very serious case. I’m not taking it lightly.

     Whether the Prosecutor’s office will appeal, but I am going to allow a

     dismissal based on what’s been said. And, of course, I would not put any

     input of whether there will be an appeal or not. I will leave that up to the

     Prosecutor’s office to flesh out. And if you want to follow this up with the

     – with written documents on your dismissal.

     [DEFENSE COUNSEL]: No, I do not. Thank you, Your Honor.

     THE COURT: That would be up to you. And if the prosecutor wants to file

     it up [sic] with any sort of written document as far as the dismissal, I will

     leave that up to your office, or whether you want to appeal or not appeal

     based on what’s been said about the fraud allegations, or whether the

     prosecutor wants to follow it up with a criminal charge of fraud.

     [PROSECUTOR]: Understood, Your Honor.

6.
       THE COURT: This is highly unusual across the board. So, I’m not going

       to make further comment. I’m just going to put a dismissal.

       {¶ 8} The state subsequently appealed.

                                   Assignment of Error

       {¶ 9} Appellant asserts the following assignment of error on appeal:

       I. The Trial Court erred in dismissing the case with[out] giving its reasons

       and findings of fact.

                                          Analysis

       {¶ 10} An appellate court reviews a trial court’s decision to dismiss a case under

Crim.R. 48(B) for an abuse of discretion. Toledo v. Green, 2015-Ohio-386, 27 N.E.3d

1015, ¶ 7 (6th Dist.), citing State v. Busch, 76 Ohio St.3d 613, 616, 669 N.E.2d 1125

(1996). “An abuse of discretion is ‘more than an error of law or judgment; it implies that

the court’s attitude is unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable.’” Id., citing Blakemore

v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 219, 450 N.E.2d 1140 (1983).

       {¶ 11} Crim.R. 48 provides the procedure for the dismissal of a criminal case by

either the state or the court. The rule does not limit the reasons for which a trial judge

might sua sponte dismiss a case; instead, “a [trial] judge may dismiss a case pursuant to

Crim.R. 48(B) if a dismissal serves the interests of justice.” Busch at 615. Subsection (B)

of the rule provides that “[i]f the court over objection of the state dismisses an indictment,

information, or complaint, it shall state on the record its findings of fact and reasons for

the dismissal.” “The findings of fact and reasons for the dismissal are necessary in order

7.
to allow meaningful review of the assignments of error.” Cleveland v. Gatens, 8th Dist.

Cuyahoga No. 109406, 2021-Ohio-313, ¶ 30.

       {¶ 12} Although “[a] dismissal by the court of the charges without findings of fact

and reasons for the dismissal pursuant to Crim.R. 48 requires reversal of the court order,”

“a written decision reducing the court’s analysis for the dismissal may not be necessary if

the transcript of the proceedings clearly identifies the rationale for the trial court’s

ruling.” Id. at ¶ 1, 31. The failure of a trial court to follow Crim.R. 48(B), therefore, is

harmless error “ ‘when the record is clear as to the basis of the court’s action.’ ” State v.

Neal, 6th Dist. Lucas No. L-92-225, 1993 WL 32301, *1 (Feb. 12, 1993), quoting State v.

Nelson, 51 Ohio App.2d 31, 33, 365 N.E.2d 1268 (8th Dist. 1977); see also State v.

McCullough, 8th Dist. No. 105959, 2018-Ohio-1967, ¶ 17.

       {¶ 13} This matter was scheduled for trial on July 27, 2022. Before the trial

commenced that day, however, Spiess moved to dismiss the complaint based on several

alleged discovery deficiencies. After providing the City an opportunity to respond to

Spiess’s motion, the trial court then stated: “I am going to allow a dismissal based on

what’s been said.” Thus, the transcript of the proceeding reveals that the trial court

dismissed the complaint based on the discovery issues raised by Spiess. The trial court,

therefore, sufficiently stated its reasons for dismissal. And to the extent the trial court

failed to state any findings of fact on the record, this failure was harmless error because

the record is nonetheless clear as to the basis of the court’s action. Under these

circumstances, the trial court did not abuse its discretion.

8.
         {¶ 14} We also note that the trial court did not specify whether the complaint was

dismissed with or without prejudice; therefore, we presume the complaint was dismissed

without prejudice. State v. Hunter, 197 Ohio App.3d 689, 2012-Ohio-189, 968 N.E.2d

585 (6th Dist.), ¶ 29; State v. Brown, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 84229, 2004-Ohio-5587,

¶ 8.

         {¶ 15} Accordingly, as the trial court stated its reasons for dismissing the

complaint against Spiess on the record, the City’s assignment of error is not well-taken,

and the judgment of the Toledo Municipal Court is affirmed. The City is ordered to pay

the costs of this appeal pursuant to App.R. 24.

                                                                          Judgment affirmed.

       A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to App.R. 27.
See also 6th Dist.Loc.App.R. 4.

Christine E. Mayle, J.                            ____________________________
                                                          JUDGE
Gene A. Zmuda, J.
                                                  ____________________________
Charles E. Sulek, J.                                      JUDGE
CONCUR.
                                                  ____________________________
                                                          JUDGE

          This decision is subject to further editing by the Supreme Court of
     Ohio’s Reporter of Decisions. Parties interested in viewing the final reported
          version are advised to visit the Ohio Supreme Court’s web site at:
                   http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/ROD/docs/.

9.