State v. McFarland

Summary

The Eighth District Court of Appeals of Ohio reviewed an alleged victim’s interlocutory appeal from the denial of a motion to quash subpoenas seeking telephone records and electronic devices. The court held that the defendant’s right to compulsory process under Article I, Section 10 of the Ohio Constitution qualified the victim’s right to refuse discovery under Marsy’s Law, but determined that the subpoena’s scope required modification. The judgment was affirmed as modified and remanded for an in-camera-controlled extraction and production of limited metadata, files, and call or video logs.

Holdings

1. A victim's right under Ohio Constitution Article I, Section 10a(A)(6), to refuse discovery is expressly subject to the accused's right under Article I, Section 10 to compulsory process, which includes the ability to use a subpoena duces tecum to obtain evidence material to the defense.
2. A defendant's right to compulsory process encompasses a subpoena duces tecum requiring a witness to produce books, papers, documents, or other evidence.
3. The subpoena could not properly require direct delivery of the victim's devices or unrestricted full-system images to the defendant because that scope was inherently unreasonable or oppressive when only a defined subset of information was relevant.
4. A proponent seeking enforcement of a Crim.R. 17(C) subpoena must show that the requested documents are relevant, not otherwise reasonably obtainable through due diligence, necessary for proper trial preparation, and sought in good faith.
5. The victim must provide the devices to the State for a full file extraction, after which the State must produce only the specified original files and associated metadata, together with call and video logs created on the date of the alleged attack; in-camera review is required.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the victim's constitutional right under Ohio Constitution Article I, Section 10a(A)(6), to refuse discovery requests made by the accused barred enforcement of the defendant's subpoena duces tecum.
2. Whether the subpoena seeking the victim's electronic devices or full system images was unreasonable or oppressive under Crim.R. 17(C).
3. Whether the trial court properly denied the motion to quash while limiting the production to relevant original files, metadata, and specified call and video logs through State-controlled extraction and in-camera review.

Disposition

remanded