S. Euclid v. Njoku , 2022 Ohio 4388 ( 2022 )

[Cite as S. Euclid v. Njoku, 2022-Ohio-4388.]
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
CITY OF SOUTH EUCLID, :
Plaintiff-Appellant, :
No. 111363
v. :
INNOCENT NJOKU, JR., :
Defendant-Appellee. :
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
JUDGMENT: REVERSED AND REMANDED
RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: December 8, 2022
Criminal Appeal from the South Euclid Municipal Court
Case No. CRB 2000621
Appearances:
Michael Lograsso, South Euclid Law Director, and Brian
M. Fallon, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellant.
Russell S. Bensing, David L. Grant, and James M. Kersey,
for appellee.
FRANK DANIEL CELEBREZZE, III, P.J.:
Plaintiff-appellant city of South Euclid (“the city”), appeals from the
South Euclid Municipal Court’s order dismissing defendant-appellee Innocent
Njoku, Jr.’s (“Njoku”) case for violation of Njoku’s constitutionally and statutorily
protected speedy-trial right. After a thorough review of the record and law, we
reverse and remand for further proceedings.
I. Factual and Procedural History
On November 8, 2020, Njoku was charged with domestic violence in
violation of R.C. 2919.25(A). Two days later, an ex-parte hearing was held with the
victim, and the trial court issued a temporary protection order. Njoku was arrested
on November 19, 2020. That same day, Njoku was arraigned and posted bond.
On December 2, 2020, Njoku moved the court to amend his protection
order. In his motion, Njoku asked that the protection order be modified to allow
him to remove his furniture from the location in which he previously lived with the
victim. He alleged that the victim did not live at the location anymore, so “removal
[would] not result in any direct or indirect contact between the parties.” The record
before us does not indicate that any action was taken on this motion by the court,
but Njoku’s counsel later indicated that this motion became moot.
On October 16, 2020, before Njoku was even charged, Njoku’s counsel
requested discovery from the city. The city provided Njoku with discovery responses
on December 4, 2020.
On February 9, 2021, a virtual pretrial was held. The transcript of this
event was not made part of the record before us, but the city indicates that at this
hearing, Njoku stated that he would file a demand for a jury trial.
On February 11, 2021, Njoku filed a demand for a trial by jury, noting
that he did not waive his speedy-trial rights. The docket indicates that the trial court
set the matter for a virtual bench trial on March 9, 2021, but for reasons not supplied
by either party, on March 24, 2021, the matter was reset for a jury trial on
December 3, 2021.
On March 31, 2021, Njoku notified the court that he served his
reciprocal discovery responses to the city.
On August 25, 2021, Njoku filed a motion to dismiss, alleging a
violation of his speedy-trial right.
On October 13, 2021, the court issued an order noting that
[o]n the courts on [sic] motion, all jury trial’s [sic] scheduled for the
months of October, November and December, will be rescheduled until
the court can accommodate jury trial’s [sic] consistent with CDC
pandemic guidelines. The clerks office will send new dates to attorney’s
and defendant’s [sic], who have successfully demanded a trial by jury.
The jury trial was reset that same day for February 11, 2022.
The trial court held a hearing on Njoku’s motion to dismiss for speedy-
trial violation on January 11, 2022. At this hearing, the following pertinent exchange
took place:
[NJOKU’S COUNSEL]: * * * Cases are being tried throughout the
County and surrounding areas. And they’re being able to do it with
appropriate safe guards. And Judge’s [sic] are not precluded from
doing that during this period of time.
Our client — and it’s our belief that South Euclid ought to be able to do
that. Again, with all due respect, your Honor.
THE COURT: * * * I’m gonna take judicial notice of your comment,
but also point that from the time of the Governor’s first issuance of the
stay at home order till today’s day, this Court still does not have any
plexi glass barriers in place which I do find to be consistent with not
only the CDC protocols, but also consistent with those that the Chief
Justice of the Ohio Supreme Court indicated were necessary to reopen
the Ohio Supreme Court for in-person hearings and/or arguments at
the building.
I’ll also note that as we sit here today, right now, this Court actually has
no chairs, no benches, no way to accommodate a jury box because the
entire Court or the Courtroom area is currently under construction
with challenging supply chain issues.
So, I do appreciate your position of what you believe the South Euclid
— City of South Euclid and the South Euclid Municipal Court ought to
be able to do, but I will note and I’ll take judicial notice that there are
some considerable impediments that do not readily allow us to
accommodate those right now. And we would love to be able to do so,
so that we can respond accordingly. But, please continue.
(Tr. 19-21.)
On February 10, 2022, the day before trial was to commence, the trial
court granted Njoku’s motion to dismiss in a journal entry, which read:
This matter came before the Court on January 11, 2021 [sic], on the
Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. Prosecutor for the City of South Euclid
and Counsel for the Defendant presented argument. After due
consideration, the Court finds the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is
well taken. The case is hereby dismissed with prejudice.
The city filed a request for findings of fact and then a motion to
reconsider. The court did not rule on the motion to reconsider, but instead issued a
nunc pro tunc order reaffirming the dismissal, which read:
On a prior date, this matter came before this court on the Defendant’s
motion to dismiss the charge of domestic violence, a misdemeanor of
the first degree, in the above captioned case, alleging the City violated
the Defendant’s right to speedy trial by not bring [sic] the case to trial
within the statutory time.
The court granted the Defendant’s motion to dismiss on or about
February 10, 2022 and hereby issues a NUNC PRO TUNC opinion.
After reviewing the information presented by the City in their response
to the Defendant’s motion to dismiss and the argument presented by
the City at the oral hearing on the matter, in which the City largely
reiterated the argument from its brief, this court finds that the City
presented not only a speedy trial calculation full of inaccuracies and
miscalculations, but in fact presented nothing upon which this court
could rely. The City’s position was so inaccurate and void of valid,
salient argument, that the court must rule in favor of the Defendant and
grant the motion to dismiss. Further, and in light of the complete lack
of any reliable argument by the City, after reviewing the pleadings
submitted by the Defendant, the court finds that the Defendant’s
motion to dismiss is well taken and dismisses the City’s complaint in
the within matter, with prejudice.
Nearly a week later, the trial court denied the city’s motion to
reconsider. The city appealed from the trial court’s order granting Njoku’s motion
to dismiss, assigning two errors for our review.
1. The trial court erred when it failed to make findings of fact on a
speedy trial motion which is a mixed question of law and fact.
2. The trial court erred when it granted the defendant’s motion for a
speedy trial violation as the tolling events due to defendant’s actions,
COVID protocols, and the trial court’s own administrative orders were
ignored by the trial court.
II. Law and Analysis
For ease of discussion, we address the city’s second assignment of
error first.
In its second assignment of error, the city argues (1) that certain filings
and discovery requests by Njoku tolled his speedy-trial clock, thus, the dismissal for
a speedy-trial violation was improper under R.C. 2945.72(E), and (2) that the
COVID-19 pandemic was a valid reason to delay jury trials and also served as a
tolling event under R.C. 2945.72(H).
A defendant is guaranteed the constitutional right to a speedy trial
pursuant to the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States
Constitution and Article I, Section 10 of the Ohio Constitution. See, e.g., State v.
Williams, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 100898, 2014-Ohio-4475, ¶ 51, citing State v.
Taylor, 98 Ohio St.3d 27, 2002-Ohio-7017, 781 N.E.2d 72, ¶ 32. R.C. 2945.71 was
implemented “to incorporate the constitutional protection of the right to a speedy
trial provided for in the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution and in
Section 10, Article I, of the Ohio Constitution.” Brecksville v. Cook, 75 Ohio St.3d
53, 55, 661 N.E.2d 706 (1996), citing State v. Broughton, 62 Ohio St.3d 253, 256,
581 N.E.2d 541 (1991).
Ohio’s statutory speedy-trial right imposes a duty on the prosecution
to bring to trial a defendant who has not waived his speedy-trial right. R.C. 2945.71
et seq. applies to defendants, is mandatory, and must be strictly complied with by
the trial court. Cleveland v. Sheldon, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 82319, 2003-Ohio-
6331, ¶ 16, citing State v. Smith, 140 Ohio App.3d 81, 86, 746 N.E.2d 678 (3d
Dist.2000). Nonetheless, the prescribed times for trial set forth in R.C. 2945.71 are
not absolute, and R.C. 2945.72 contains an exhaustive list of circumstances and
events that extend the time within which a defendant must be brought to trial. Cook
at 55-56, citing State v. Wentworth, 54 Ohio St.2d 171, 173, 375 N.E.2d 424 (1978).
Pertinent to this case are R.C. 2945.72 subsections (E) and (H), which read:
(E) Any period of delay necessitated by reason of a plea in bar or
abatement, motion, proceeding, or action made or instituted by the
accused;
***
(H) The period of any continuance granted on the accused’s own
motion, and the period of any reasonable continuance granted other
than upon the accused’s own motion.
Finally, ‘“[a]lthough the right of the defendant to a speedy trial is one
of constitutional proportions, there is an important countervailing interest that
must be given weight in the balance of competing interests. It is the right of the
people to require criminal defendants to stand trial for their alleged offenses.’”
Cleveland v. Gross, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 110669, 2022-Ohio-193, ¶ 7, quoting
Cook at 59.
“Appellate review of a trial court’s decision on a motion to dismiss for
a speedy trial violation raises a mixed question of law and fact.” State v. Burks, 8th
Dist. Cuyahoga No. 106639, 2018-Ohio-4777, ¶ 22, citing State v. Loder, 8th Dist.
Cuyahoga Nos. 93242 and 93865, 2010-Ohio-3085, ¶ 9, citing State v. Easley, 4th
Dist. Scioto No. 03CA2910, 2005-Ohio-767, ¶ 6. The legal issues are reviewed under
a de novo standard but great deference is given to the trial court’s factual findings if
the findings are supported by competent, credible evidence. Burks at id., citing
Loder at id. This court has previously described the procedure for establishing that
a defendant’s speedy-trial right has been violated:
Once the statutory limit has expired, the defendant has established a
prima facie case for dismissal. State v. Howard (1992), 79 Ohio App.3d
705, 607 N.E.2d 1121. At that point, the burden shifts to the state to
demonstrate that sufficient time was tolled pursuant to R.C. 2945.72.
Rocky River v. Glodick, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 89302, 2007-Ohio-5705, ¶ 8, citing
State v. Geraldo, 13 Ohio App.3d 27, 28, 468 N.E.2d 328 (6th Dist.1983).
Njoku was charged with domestic violence, a first-degree
misdemeanor. Pursuant to R.C. 2945.71(B)(2), the city had 90 days to bring Njoku
to trial.
Njoku argues that he was required to be brought to trial by March 4,
2021, starting from the date of his arrest on November 19, 2019. Njoku suggests
that his request for discovery was the only tolling event, and that once the city
responded to the discovery request on December 4, 2020, his speedy-trial clock was
tolled until December 4, 2020. Since 90 days from December 4, 2020, is March 4,
2021, Njoku asserts that his speedy-trial right was violated because he was not
brought to trial by this time. Njoku therefore established a prima facie case for
dismissal. The city thus must establish that sufficient time was tolled pursuant to
any of the tolling events enumerated in R.C. 2945.72.
In response, the city asserts that Njoku’s discovery request was not the
only event that tolled the speedy-trial clock, citing Njoku’s reciprocal discovery,
Njoku’s request to amend the protection order, the COVID-19 pandemic’s effect on
the South Euclid Municipal Court, and Njoku’s motion to dismiss for violation of his
speedy-trial right.
Both the city and Njoku agree that Njoku’s speedy-trial clock began
on November 19, 2020, the date that he was arrested, arraigned, and posted bail.
However, Njoku requested discovery before he was even charged, on October 16,
2020. ‘“[T]he most sensible interpretation of R.C. 2945.72(E) is that when a
defendant requests discovery, the request operates as a tolling event.’” State v.
Belville, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-3879, at ¶ 19, quoting State v. Brown, 98 Ohio
St.3d 121, 2002-Ohio-7040, 781 N.E.2d 159, ¶ 23. Neither party disputes that the
city timely responded to the discovery request on December 4, 2020, and that from
November 19, 2020, through December 4, 2020, Njoku’s speedy-trial time was
tolled for a total of 15 days.
The city contends that another tolling event occurred on December 2,
2020, when Njoku moved the court to amend the protection order. Njoku responds
that R.C. 2945.72(E) extends the speedy-trial clock only when the motion causes
delay in the proceedings. Neither party has provided any authority or caselaw upon
which we can rely. Nonetheless, we are required to construe any ambiguities in favor
of the accused. State v. Virostek, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 110592, 2022-Ohio-1397,
¶ 8, citing State v. Johnson, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga Nos. 78097, 78098, and 78099,
2001 Ohio App. LEXIS 999, 6 (Mar. 8, 2001). ‘“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.’” Belville at ¶ 20, quoting State v. Sanchez, 110 Ohio St.3d 274,
2006-Ohio-4478, 853 N.E.2d 283, ¶ 26. However, whether a motion causes a delay
requires an analysis of cause and effect. In re D.S., 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 97757,
2012-Ohio-2213, ¶ 35, citing State v. Owens, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 13054, 1992
Ohio App. LEXIS 3332, 6 (June 26, 1992). Because there is no evidence in the record
indicating that the motion to amend the protection order caused any delay to either
party in bringing Njoku to trial, we are constrained to accept Njoku’s argument that
this was not the type of motion that tolled the speedy-trial clock. The substance of
Njoku’s motion to amend the protection order dealt solely with the issue of
retrieving his furniture and did not have any effect on his or the city’s ability to timely
prepare for trial. Accordingly, this motion did not toll Njoku’s speedy-trial clock.
The next tolling event that the city points to is the fact that Njoku
failed to serve reciprocal discovery responses on the city until March 31, 2021. The
city argues that the clock was tolled from the time that both parties agreed that
Njoku’s speedy-trial clock began, on November 19, 2020, through March 31, 2021,
when Njoku served reciprocal responses. Njoku does not offer an argument in
rebuttal.
Under Crim.R. 16(H), “[i]f the defendant serves a written demand for
discovery or any other pleading seeking disclosure of evidence on the prosecuting
attorney, a reciprocal duty of disclosure arises without further demand from the
state.” This “automatic” reciprocal duty was added to the statute in 2016. Prior to
the amendment, the Ohio Supreme Court held that “a defendant’s failure to respond
within a reasonable time to a prosecution request for reciprocal discovery
constitutes neglect that tolls the running of speedy-trial time pursuant to
R.C. 2945.72(D).” State v. Palmer, 112 Ohio St.3d 457, 2007-Ohio-374, 860 N.E.2d
1011, ¶ 24. We find that Palmer is still applicable despite the fact that the statute no
longer requires the prosecution to serve a written request.
The parties agree that Njoku’s speedy-trial right first arose on
November 19, 2020, despite requesting discovery before he was charged. Njoku did
not address the automatic, reciprocal discovery request until March 31, 2021, which
means that 132 days elapsed before Njoku responded to discovery after his speedy-
trial right arose. This court has repeatedly determined that in most circumstances,
30 days is typically a “reasonable” time to respond to discovery. State v. Geraci, 8th
Dist. Cuyahoga Nos. 101946 and 101947, 2015-Ohio-2699, ¶ 26, citing State v. Byrd,
8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 91433, 2009-Ohio-3283, ¶ 9; State v. Barb, 8th Dist.
Cuyahoga No. 90768, 2008-Ohio-5877, ¶ 9; State v. Shabazz, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga
No. 95021, 2011-Ohio-2260, ¶ 26. Finding no argument explaining or justifying the
132 days, we find that only 30 days of Njoku’s response time was reasonable.
Therefore, Njoku’s speedy-trial clock was tolled for an additional 102 days (132
minus 30).
The city also asserts that the COVID-19 pandemic’s effect on the South
Euclid Municipal Court was a valid tolling event. In support of this, the city cites (1)
the Ohio Attorney General Opinion No. 2020-002; (2) the fact that South Euclid
City Hall was closed to the public from March 20, 2020 onward; and (3) the South
Euclid Municipal Court’s administrative order from September 2020. 1 Njoku only
responds that “House Bill 197,” signed by Governor DeWine, expired on July 30,
2020, four months before Njoku was even arrested. House Bill 197 does not appear
to be cited by the city on appeal, but Njoku claims that this was the only valid
1 The order itself is dated September 21, 2020. The bottom of the order indicates
that it was journalized on September 18, 2020. For these reasons, we will refer to this
order throughout as the “September 2020 order.”
COVID-19 related tolling event, and that it expired prior to the commencement of
this case. We disagree.
The Ohio Supreme Court has found that COVID-19 related orders and
continuances tolling trials are permissible pursuant to R.C. 2945.72(H), which
provides that speedy-trial time may be extended by “the period of any reasonable
continuance granted other than upon the accused’s own motion” and that pandemic
related continuances are “reasonable.”2 State v. Lynum (In re Disqualification of
Fleegle), 161 Ohio St.3d 1263, 2020-Ohio-5636, 163 N.E.3d 609, ¶ 7. “In Fleegle,
the Ohio Supreme Court held that trial judges have the authority to continue trials
for defendants on a case-by-case basis without violating speedy-trial requirements
and continuing a trial because of a pandemic state of emergency is reasonable under
R.C. 2945.72(H).” State v. Jones, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 110081, 2021-Ohio-3359,
¶ 12, citing Fleegle at id. Nearly a year after Fleegle was decided, the Ohio Supreme
Court reiterated Fleegle’s holding, stating that “we are at a different stage of the
pandemic than when Fleegle was decided” but “we are not yet out of the woods,
judges should continue to ensure that scrupulous safety practices are followed for
all in-person hearings.” In re Bickerton, 163 Ohio St.3d 1268, 2021-Ohio-1266, 169
N.E.3d 704, ¶ 7. Even now, in 2022, the Ohio Supreme Court maintains that Fleegle
2 The Supreme Court adopted this holding pursuant to Attorney General Opinion
2020-002, in which the Attorney General advised that R.C. 2941.71(H) “permits
prosecutors to seek, and courts to grant, reasonable continuances” and that the pandemic
emergency provides a “reasonable” basis for continuance without violating a defendant’s
speedy-trial right. The city cited this opinion as a basis for the reasonableness of COVID-
19 related speedy-trial tolling.
remains applicable, noting that “the chief justice has stated that trial judges have the
authority to grant continuances ‘on a case-by-case basis without violating speedy-
trial requirements.’” State v. Drain, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-3697, ¶ 54,
quoting Fleegle at ¶ 7.
In addition to the Ohio Supreme Court, this court has repeatedly
upheld numerous continuances by trial courts for COVID-19 related reasons and
determined that COVID-19 related continuances toll a defendant’s speedy-trial
clock.
In State v. Tuttle, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 110508, 2022-Ohio-303, we
reversed and remanded the trial court’s dismissal on speedy-trial grounds, finding
that the COVID-19 pandemic presented a reasonable circumstance under which a
defendant’s speedy-trial time could be tolled. In Tuttle, the trial court issued
numerous administrative orders suspending jury trials until about September 2020
when jury trials began to proceed in a “triage” fashion, prioritizing defendants who
were incarcerated. Id. at ¶ 30. This court determined that the trial court’s
suspension of jury trials to prevent the spread of COVID-19 was reasonable and that
the time would not be counted against the state. Id. at ¶ 31.
In Virostek, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 110592, 2022-Ohio-1397, this
court held that a trial court’s sua sponte suspension of all jury trials between
January 14, 2021, and May 2, 2021, was reasonable pursuant to R.C. 2945.72(H) due
to the challenges presented by the COVID-19 pandemic. Id. at ¶ 92.
In State v. Quinn, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 110692, 2022-Ohio-2038,
defendant Quinn was arrested in May 2019 and his trial did not begin until May
2021. While this court noted several continuances and delays by the defendant
himself, including Quinn’s own waiver of speedy trial from September 2020 through
January 2021, this court ultimately noted that the trial court’s multiple continuances
occurring after January 2021 due to COVID-19 concerns were reasonable. Id. at ¶ 36
(“We acknowledge that a two-year delay between arrest and trial is lengthy.
However, we cannot say that it is excessive in light of the Covid-19 pandemic that
has affected and essentially delayed everyone’s life starting in the spring of 2020.”).
In In re C.C., 2022-Ohio-2264, 192 N.E.3d 1203 (8th Dist.), the
Cuyahoga County Juvenile Court, in March 2021, issued an order continuing a
juvenile’s matter “indefinitely” until more guidance was received from the Cuyahoga
County General Division. Id. at ¶ 11. Ultimately, the trial court dismissed C.C.’s case
for violating C.C.’s speedy-trial right, refusing to take into account the tolling orders
pertaining to COVID-19. In rejecting the trial court’s refusal to toll speedy-trial on
COVID-19 grounds, this court reasoned “[w]hile this court understands that the
visiting judge took exception to the juvenile court’s previous failures to expedite the
SYO proceedings, we find the county-wide suspension of jury trials was necessary
and applicable to the speedy-trial time implicated in this matter.” Id. at ¶ 37. This
court further noted that “[a]lthough the continuance prompted further inaction by
the state * * * we find no basis to ignore the application of clear tolling provisions.”
Id.
The South Euclid Municipal Court’s September 2020 administrative
order, which was attached to the city’s response to Njoku’s motion to dismiss
pertinently noted that:
6. Jury Trials: Jury Trials not subject to Speedy Trial violations shall
be rescheduled to [sic] further notice by the Court.
Despite this clear exception of instances where speedy-trial rights are at issue,
the remainder of paragraph 6 reads:
Until such time that the South Euclid Municipal Court is assured that
the South Euclid Municipal Complex has become a suitable
environment to protect the health and safety of the public, jurors,
litigants, attorneys and court staff during this pandemic. Whereas,
currently, the South Euclid Municipal Complex fails to provide any six
feet markings to promote proper social distancing, hand sanitizing
stations at all entrances into the building, temperature checks for
entrants or in the alternative a thermometer for entering parties to
conduct said checks personally, emergency disposable face masks for
the public and a consistently enforced mask policy for City employees
while in the Municipal building. For these reasons, this Court finds the
Municipal Complex to be at increased risk of COVID-19 virus
transmission and ill-suited for public visitation.
While the initial text of paragraph 6 indicates that the order was not
intended to toll the speedy-trial clock, a complete reading of the order indicates
otherwise. The order also notes that:
The Ohio Supreme Court’s Guidance to Courts throughout Ohio
regarding COVID-19 issued on May 18, 2020 remains largely valid with
the noted modifications as adopted in this Order. Consistent with said
guidance, this court finds it necessary to exercise caution as it relates to
those who are required to participate in in-person court appearances.
The Ohio Supreme Court has instructed Ohio courts to only require
personal court appearances in cases of immediate need. To facilitate
this goal, ensure litigant accountability, provide a safe courthouse
environment and decrease incidences where litigants have failed to
appear as required, this court shall utilize technology and conduct
virtual hearings for all proceedings except otherwise specified and until
such time where this Order is terminated.
Further, the trial court’s own comments during the January 2022
hearing indicate that a jury trial was not possible due to circumstances caused by
the COVID-19 pandemic that were out of the trial court’s control. Among the
reasons cited in the September 2020 order, the trial court cited ongoing
construction in the courtroom which was delayed due to COVID-19 related supply
chain delays.
“The record of the trial court must in some manner affirmatively
demonstrate that a sua sponte continuance by the court was reasonable in light of
its necessity or purpose.” State v. Lee, 48 Ohio St.2d 208, 209, 357 N.E.2d 1095(1976). Pursuant to the Supreme Court and this court’s precedent, we find that the
trial court’s inability to hold a trial due to safety and supply chain concerns related
to COVID-19 was reasonable. The record demonstrates that from the time Njoku
was charged until the motion to dismiss hearing was held in January 2022, the
South Euclid Municipal Court was unable to conduct jury trials. These
complications arising from the COVID-19 pandemic clearly constituted a tolling
event. It is unclear from the trial court’s nunc pro tunc entry whether this was
considered in its calculation, but its own administrative order and admissions
during the January 2022 hearing overwhelmingly relay the difficulties and
tribulations that the South Euclid Municipal Court faced in holding jury trials.
In addition to the trial court’s clear inability to hold a trial due to
COVID-19 concerns that began in September 2020 and were still ongoing by
January 2022, the city points out that Njoku’s motion to dismiss constituted an
additional tolling event. “A motion to dismiss tolls the time in which a defendant
must be tried.” Sheldon, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 82319, 2003-Ohio-6331, at ¶ 22,
citing State v. Bickerstaff, 10 Ohio St.3d 62, 67, 461 N.E.2d 892 (1984). Njoku’s
motion to dismiss was filed on August 25, 2021, while the September 2020
administrative order was in effect, and the court did not rule on it until February 10,
2022. Accordingly, Njoku’s case was tolled for another 169 days.
We also find that several of the days were tolled by Njoku’s doing, and
the city did not engage in any practices or request any continuances that delayed the
case at all. Pursuant to Fleegle, the trial court is, and was, in the best position to
determine whether or not a jury trial could safely and effectively be held, and the
record plainly reflects that the trial court felt that it was unable to proceed with a
jury trial.
We are further persuaded by the fact that the speedy-trial right is
designed ‘““to minimize the possibility of lengthy incarceration prior to trial, to
reduce the lesser, but nevertheless substantial, impairment of liberty imposed on an
accused while released on bail, and to shorten the disruption of life caused by arrest
and the presence of unresolved criminal charges.””’ (Emphasis deleted.) State v.
Azbell, 112 Ohio St.3d 300, 2006-Ohio-6552, 859 N.E.2d 532, ¶ 18, quoting State v.
Triplett, 78 Ohio St.3d 566, 568, 679 N.E.2d 290 (1997), quoting United States v.
MacDonald, 456 U.S. 1, 8, 102 S.Ct. 1497, 71 L.Ed.2d 696 (1982).
On appeal, Njoku did not make any showing that this delay, primarily
caused by an unprecedented pandemic that was out of the city’s control, infringed
on his liberties or caused any prejudice. During the January 2022 proceeding,
Njoku’s attorney noted that “Mr. Njoku has been unable to move on with his job.
He’s a doctor at the Clinic. He can’t move on with other opportunities. He very
much wants the opportunity to vindicate himself in this particular case.” (Tr. 22.)
However, this was the only time any prejudice to Njoku was introduced; this point
was not argued in Njoku’s motion to dismiss nor on appeal; and this comment
standing alone does not allow us to properly discern the exact, material prejudices
that Njoku has suffered.
Our review of this matter reveals that the trial court’s September 2020
administrative order constituted a reasonable tolling event. Further, we agree that
several of Njoku’s own actions discussed herein were valid tolling events. The trial
court’s nunc pro tunc entry does not contain competent, credible evidence indicating
to us whether or not any of these tolling events were considered in the trial court’s
decision to dismiss this matter. Our review indicates that all of the tolling events
discussed herein were reasonable and the trial court erred in not considering them
before dismissing the case. We find that Njoku still had time on his speedy-trial
clock at the time this matter was dismissed. We therefore sustain the city’s second
assignment of error.
Because of our resolution of the city’s second assignment of error, we
will only briefly address the city’s first. In its first assignment of error, the city
contends that it was reversible error for the trial court to fail to issue findings of fact
in dismissing this matter on speedy-trial grounds.
The city directs us to Crim.R. 12(C) and (F), arguing that the trial court
was required to state its factual findings in granting Njoku’s motion to dismiss. We
do not find any persuasive authority in Crim.R. 12(C), but note that Crim.R. 12(F)
states that “[w]here factual issues are involved in determining a motion, the court
shall state its essential findings on the record.”
Despite the statute’s use of the word “shall,” this court has found that
“a trial court’s failure to provide its ‘essential findings’ on the record in a case may
not be fatal to a review of the trial court’s ruling on the motion when the record
provides a sufficient basis to review appellant’s assignments of error.” Bedford v.
Clarke, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 95594, 2011-Ohio-941, ¶ 8, citing State v. Bennett,
8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 86962, 2006-Ohio-4274, ¶ 16. In the instant matter, the
record allowed us to effectively determine why the trial court was unable to hold a
jury trial. It was clear from the administrative orders and the trial court’s own words
during the January 2022 hearing that the COVID-19 pandemic was the reason for
delaying Njoku’s jury trial. The record also enabled us to determine which “events”
acted as tolling events in Njoku’s case. We therefore overrule the city’s first
assignment of error.
III. Conclusion
The trial court erred in dismissing Njoku’s case by failing to consider
valid tolling events in its calculations, including its own administrative order
detailing that no in-person hearings or trials could occur due to complications posed
by the COVID-19 pandemic.
The trial court’s dismissal is reversed, and this matter remanded for
further proceedings.
It is ordered that appellant recover from appellee costs herein taxed.
The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court directing the
municipal court to carry this judgment into execution.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27
of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
________________________________________
FRANK DANIEL CELEBREZZE, III, PRESIDING JUDGE
EILEEN A. GALLAGHER, J., CONCURS;
CORNELIUS J. O’SULLIVAN, JR., J., DISSENTS WITH SEPARATE OPINION
CORNELIUS J. O’SULLIVAN, JR., J., DISSENTING:
I respectfully dissent and would affirm the trial court’s judgment
granting defendant-appellee’s motion to dismiss due to the fact that he was denied
his constitutional right to a speedy trial.
The right to a speedy trial is guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment to
the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 10 of the Ohio Constitution.
Ohio’s speedy-trial statute, R.C. 2945.71, “was implemented to incorporate the
constitutional protection of the right to a speedy trial.” Cook, 75 Ohio St.3d at 55,
661 N.E.2d 706. Accordingly, the speedy-trial statutes must be strictly construed
against the government. Id.Upon my review, appellee’s speedy-trial time was tolled, at the latest,
until March 31, 2021, when appellee provided his discovery to appellant, the city of
South Euclid. I do not believe that any other tolling events occurred after March
2021. Given speedy-trial mandates, appellee should have been brought to trial in
the summer of 2021.
I am wholly unpersuaded by the trial court’s initial purported
explanation, which the majority now adopts, of the COVID-19 pandemic and lack of
space in the courthouse as reasons for the delay. The Ohio Governor’s pandemic-
related orders expired in June 2020. The Ohio Supreme Court awarded funds and
services to multiple courts who advised them that the pandemic presented
hardships. There were challenges in holding trials and hearings, but they were not
insurmountable. By June 2020, trials and hearings were routinely held across the
nation using various software programs such as Zoom and Microsoft Teams. Free
training and software were widely available. Ohio’s Civil and Criminal Rules of
Procedure were adapted so that courts could avail themselves of various video and
audio capabilities.
The Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas reopened in the
summer of 2020. This court never ceased its operations, even during the initial
stages of the pandemic; rather, it expeditiously transferred to remote operations.
Indeed, just a few miles away from the South Euclid Municipal Court, in Lake
County, in-person trials and hearings went forward throughout the entirety of 2020-
2021.
Appellee’s claim of prejudice is well founded. He is a medical doctor,
and the charges against him would interfere with his ability to secure employment,
maintain his licensing, and obtain professional liability insurance. The alleged
victim is also prejudiced by not having this matter settled in a timely manner. These
were very serious allegations against the appellee. Both the alleged victim and the
alleged perpetrator deserved to have their day in court. While federal and state
courts across the nation adapted to the challenges of the global pandemic, and
limited shutdowns ended in May of 2020, there is no evidence that the South Euclid
Municipal Court took any measures to ensure justice to the community is it sworn
to serve. In spite of significant resources allocated to the justice system by the
federal and state government, and our own Ohio Supreme Court, the municipal
court here was apparently closed for more than a year.
Appellee found himself facing significant criminal allegations. The
prosecutor and appellee’s defense counsel appear to have worked together to
attempt to bring this matter to the attention of the trial court. I believe the trial court
acted with gross incompetence by allowing the COVID-19 pandemic to evidently
close the court for more than a year. The only thing the trial court did correctly was
dismiss the charges due to its own speedy-trial violation. I would affirm the
judgment granting appellee’s motion to dismiss. I therefore dissent.