| State v. Schmitz, 2005-Ohio-6617 (Ohio Ct. App. 10th Dist. December 13, 2005) [unpublished] |
|
Brief Summary: Defendant challenged conviction on charge of tampering with evidence stemming from the deletion of photos of molestation victim from digital camera storage. Facts: Defendant Peter M. Schmitz used a digital camera to take two photos of molestation victim. Confronted by a friend of the victim, Schmitz extracted a "digital disc" from the camera and gave it to the friend, who in turn handed it over to the Columbus, Ohio police. An initial examination did not reveal any photos. However, a forensic examination of the storage medium revealed deleted photos, included two of the victim. The state's expert witness testified that the photos could have been deleted accidentally or purposefully. The jury convicted Schmitz of the charge of purposefully tampering with evidence. Issue(s): Whether the evidence presented by the prosecution was adequate to support a finding that Schmitz purposefully tampered with the evidence, i.e., deleted the photos from the camera storage medium. Decision: No, the evidence was not sufficient. Reasoning: The state's evidence, offered through its expert witness, merely showed that the photos had been deleted. The expert witness was unable to say when the photos were deleted, or whether they were deleted by accident or on purpose. The state did not offer any additional evidence showing that defendant purposefully deleted the photos. As a result, there was insufficient evidence to support the jury's finding on that count. |
Please Donate
If you find the resources on this site interesting, or if they have saved you and your client time and money, please support CFD with a donation.
