State v. Steele

Summary

The Supreme Court of Ohio held that a police officer is not exempt from prosecution for intimidation under R.C. 2921.03 when the officer abuses interrogation powers or knowingly files a materially false complaint to influence or intimidate a witness. The court also held that a jury instruction defining “privilege” identically to R.C. 2901.01(A)(12) was not plain error, although more specific guidance concerning a police officer’s loss of arrest privilege would have been preferable. The court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings.

Holdings

1. R.C. 2921.03 provides no exemption for police officers. A police officer may be prosecuted and convicted for intimidation when the officer's conduct satisfies the statutory elements, including knowingly filing a materially false writing in bad faith to influence or intimidate a witness.
2. A jury instruction defining "privilege" identically to R.C. 2901.01(A)(12) does not constitute plain error merely because the court failed to sua sponte provide a more specific instruction explaining when a police officer loses the privilege to arrest and detain. A police officer does not lose the privilege merely because probable cause is lacking; the privilege is lost when a reasonable police officer would understand that probable cause is lacking.

Questions Presented

1. Whether a police officer is exempt from prosecution under R.C. 2921.03 for intimidation based on conduct during an interrogation or the filing of a materially false complaint.
2. Whether a trial court commits plain error by defining the statutory term "privilege" for an abduction charge using the language of R.C. 2901.01(A)(12), without additionally instructing that a police officer loses the privilege to arrest only when a reasonable police officer would understand that probable cause is lacking.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded