The Akron Legal News

6th District: Police elicited incriminating statements

ANNIE YAMSON
Special to the Legal News
Published: July 19, 2013

Last week, the 6th District Court of Appeals reviewed a state appeal from a case in the Wood County Court of Common Pleas.

The state of Ohio appealed the judgment of the county court, which suppressed incriminating statements made by the defendant, Jason Rybarczyk, during a police interview.

The trial court found Rybarczyk’s statements were made involuntarily and the Sixth District affirmed its judgment.

According to the facts and procedural background provided by the appellate court, the charges against Rybarczyk stemmed from allegations of sexual contact with a minor.

As part of their investigation into the alleged rape of a 4-year-old child, detectives Justin White and Doug Hartman of the Bowling Green Police Department approached Rybarczyk at his home and requested an interview with him.

The interview took place in White’s unmarked police car in the parking lot of the apartment building where Rybarczyk lived.

Testimony from the suppression hearing indicated the car doors were unlocked and the windows were down throughout the interview.

White and Hartman were dressed in street clothes and, although they were armed, their weapons were never visible.

Though it was not considered a custodial interrogation, the interview lasted almost two hours and the conversation was recorded.

The audio recordings indicated White repeatedly claimed he knew something had occurred between Rybarczyk and the child and he persistently sought to obtain a confession.

According to the audio, White told Rybarczyk, “So what I’m saying is we know that your DNA is there, and what I am saying is why?”

Judge Stephen Yarbrough wrote the opinion on behalf of the district’s three-judge appellate panel.

In it he wrote, “Notably, White’s statements were an artifice; no DNA evidence existed.”

Rybarczyk consistently denied White’s allegations and, as a result, White consistently intensified the interview. He repeatedly told Rybarczyk that, if he talked, he would get probation, otherwise he would go to jail.

“I am talking this is something you can go to prison for 15 to 20 years, all right?” White said, claiming that he had experience with these types of cases and that people who come forward and admit it was an accident end up getting probation and “end up being able to clear up their lives.”

White also told Rybarczyk that there are “two groups of normal people,” those who are “honest and forthright” and “admit it was a mistake” and those who deny anything happened.

“This group of people is the one that, for the most part, end up doing the 10 to 15 years,” he said.

White continued to pressure Rybarczyk with the threat of prison: “I am throwing you a lifeline here, dude. Possibly on the difference between a large amount of years in prison or just getting probation or something or having your probation extended. But the thing is, that second option isn’t going to be available if you don’t completely come forward.”

Though he continued to deny any inappropriate conduct, approximately one hour into the interview, Rybarczyk began to believe the officers’ ruse that his DNA had been found on the child and he began attempting to justify how it could have gotten there.

Mostly, Rybarczyk claimed that if his DNA had been found, it was from “horsing around,” bouncing the child on his lap or spanking her playfully on the bottom.

“Near the end of the interview, having been told countless times that the officers knew he inappropriately touched the child and that they had sufficient evidence to go to the prosecutor ... (Rybarczyk) confessed that when he spanked the child when she was across his friend’s lap, his hand went into the child’s underwear,” wrote Yarbrough.

The interview concluded shortly after the confession and Rybarczyk was subsequently indicted by the Wood County Grand Jury on one count of rape.

He entered an initial plea of not guilty and moved to suppress the statements he made during the interview.

The trial court granted the motion, finding his statements were made involuntarily “due to the total circumstances of being pressured by two detectives in an unmarked police cruiser for over one hour with threats of prison for 15 years or more.”

Upon appeal, the state asserted the trial court improperly suppressed the statements.

“Under similar circumstances, Ohio appellate courts have held that the confession is inadmissible,” wrote Yarbrough.

The court of appeals found White made numerous fabrications when it came to the allegations against Rybarczyk, notably that his DNA was found on the child and that people who admit their wrongdoing avoid going to prison.

“Importantly, White’s suggestion of probation is a misstatement of the law, since the crime (Rybarczyk) was alleged to have committed — rape of a child — carries a mandatory prison term,” Yarbrough noted.

If an accused’s decision to speak was motivated by police officers’ direct or indirect promises of leniency, the appellate panel held that those statements could not possibly be made voluntarily.

Yarbrough concluded, “It is clear from the record that the combination of the persistent lies regarding physical evidence linking (Rybarczyk) to the child and the threat of prison versus the hope of probation overcame (Rybarczyk’s) free will and improperly coerced his confession.”

The court of appeals ultimately decided that there was no merit to the state’s sole assignment of error.

Judges Mark Pietrykowski and James Jensen joined Yarbrough in a unanimous affirmation of the judgment of the Wood County court.

The case is cited State v. Rybarczyk, 2013-Ohio-2943.

[Back]