IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS PIKE COUNTY, OHIO ‘THE STATE OF OHIO Plaintiff, + Case No, 2018CRO00154 -vs- ‘ EDWARD JACOB WAGNER : JUDGE RANDY D. DEERING "Defendant. BILL OF PARTICULARS ‘Now comes the Elected and Special Prosecutors for Pike County, on behalf of the State of Ohio, pursuant to Rule 7(E) of the Ohio Rules of Criminal Procedure and informs the defendant of the following particulars regarding the indictment in the above captioned case. ‘The State notes initially that "[TJhe purpose for giving a bill of particulars is ‘to elucidate or particularize the conduct of the accused,’ but not 'to provide the accused with specifications of evidence or to serve as a substitute for discovery.” State v. Lawrinson (1990), 49 Ohio St3d 238, 239, 551 N.E.2d 1261, quoting State v, Sellards (1985), 17 Ohio St.3d 169, 17 Ohio B, 410, 478 N.B.2d 781. | Indeed, the bill of particulars has a limited scope and is not intended to take the place of formal - discovery. See State v. Robinson, Lake App. No. 2004-L-146, 2005 Ohio 6286; State v. Morris, Clark App. No. 06-CA-65, 2007 Ohio 3591; State v. Rivers, Cuyahoga App. No. 83321, 2004 Ohio 2566 (finding a bill of particulars that recited the aggravated burglary statute verbatim and adding the date, time and location of the indictment was sufficient to notify the defendant of the offense). In jurisdictions where the State allows open file discovery, a bill of particulars is not even required. State v. Evans, Montgomery App. No. 20794, 2006-Ohio-1425, $24. In this case, the State of coMMON PLEAS COURT] JAN 24 2019 JUSTIN P. BREWSTER Bie AATINITY CI ERKOhio is conducting discovery with an open file policy and will provide the Defendant with everything in its possession. Additionally, as this Court knows, the State is permitted to indict in the alternative as long as the indictment tracks the statutory language of any given charge. Thus, the State is not required to select a single theory upon which to rely, as the Defendant appears to request throughout his Motion for a Bill of Particulars. ‘The Courts have long held that the State enjoys nearly “unfettered” discretion in charging a Defendant. The Court in State v, Sullivan noted there is no need to “handcuff the state by forcing it to select a single theory upon which it relied”. State v. Sullivan, 65 NE. 989 (N.Y. 1903), 59 54, See, e.g, State v. Weldy, 273 Mont, 68, 74-75, 902 P.2d 1, 8-9 (1995). 55. See, e.g., People v. Sullivan, 65 NE. 989, 990-91 (N.Y. 1903); United States v. Uco Oil, 546 F.2d 833, 838 (9th Cir. 1976); United States v, Gipson, 553 F.2d 453, 457-58 (Sth Cit. 1977); Schad v. Arizona, 501 U.S. 624, 636-37 (1991); State v. Weldy, 273 Mont. 68, 74-75, 902 P.2d 1, 8-9 (1995). The State is, however, providing some of the particulars that the Defendant specifically requested. For these reasons, the State asserts that the following Bill of Particulars complies with the provisions set forth in Criminal Rule 7(E) and Ohio case law, and requests the Court overrule the Defendant's requests for anything more specific. Count 1 1, Nature_of Offense: Aggravated Murder, specifically the defendant violated Section 2903.01(A) of the Ohio Revised Code, an unclassified felony. 2. Conduct of Defendant, Date and Time: Edward Jacob Wagner, defendant, on or about April 22, 2016, within the County of Pike aforesaid, in violation of section 2903.01(A) of the Ohio COMMON PLEAS COURT JAN 24 2019 JUSTIN P. BREWSTERRevised Code, did unlawfully and purposely, and with prior calculation and design, cause the death of another, to wit: Kenneth Rhoden, by shooting him one time. |. Location of Offense: 1084 Left Fork Road, Rarden, Ohio, Pike County, Ohio |. Specification One: The said Edward Jacob Wagner had a firearm on or about his person or under his control while committing the said Aggravated Murder, as specified in Section 2941.141 of the Ohio Revised Code. . Specification Two: The said Edward Jacob Wagner had a firearm on or about his person or under his control while committing the said Aggravated Murder, and displayed the firearm, brandished the firearm, indicated that the said Edward Jacob Wagner possessed the firearm, and/or used it to facilitate the said Aggravated Murder, as specified in Section 2941.145 of the Ohio Revised Code. . Specification Three: The said Edward Jacob Wagner had a firearm that is an automatic firearm or that was equipped with a firearm muffler or suppressor on or about his person or under his control while committing the said Aggravated Murder, as specified in Section 2941.144 of the Ohio Revised Code. . Specification Four: The said Edward Jacob Wagner committed the said Aggravated Murder for the purpose of escaping detection, apprehension, trail or punishment for another offense committed by the said Edward Jacob Wagner, to wit: Aggravated Murder, Conspiracy to ‘Commit Murder, Aggravated Burglary, and/or Engaging in a Patter of Corrupt Activity, as specified in Section 2941 .14/2929.04(A)(3) of the Ohio Revised Code, . Specification Five: The said Edward Jacob Wagner committed the said Aggravated Murder ° as a part of a course of conduct involving the purposeful killing of or attempt to kill two or more persons, to wit: Kenneth Rhoden, Chris Rhoden, Sr., Gary COMMON PLEAS COURT: JAN 24 2019 JUSTIN P. BREWSTER E CO! CLERK