MANSFIELD — A Mansfield man charged with using the internet to seek sex with an 8-year-old girl still has no access to a county jail tablet that his attorney said the defendant would use only to contact his parents.
A hearing on a motion from defense attorney Rolf Whitney — representing 28-year-old Bryce Witchey — was continued Friday afternoon in Richland County Common Pleas Court to allow time to determine how the jail-issued tablet system works and what access restrictions can be placed on their usage.
The hearing before Magistrate Jill Cochran is scheduled to resume Aug. 2 at 2 p.m.
Witchey, arrested by Mansfield police in the early morning hours of June 14, remains in the Richland County Jail on a $500,000 bond, according to court records. He also has no access to any electronic devices or the internet.
Witchey was charged with a third-degree felony count of importuning after a Mansfield woman called police to report a man was talking to her on social media and wanted to have sex with her daughter.
She said it was happening even as she called police, using an Instagram profile. The woman said she was recording the on-screen conversation, but didn’t know the suspect’s actual name.
According to the police report, officers went to the mother’s house and Witchey was identified during their investigation.
According to Ohio Revised Code 2907.07, “No person shall solicit a person who is less than thirteen years of age to engage in sexual activity with the offender, whether or not the offender knows the age of such person.”
On July 3, Whitney requested Witchey’s bond be modified, prompting Friday’s hearing.
(Below is a PDF of the motion seeking to modify Bryce Witchey’s bond.)
In his motion, Whitney asked Witchey be allowed to use the jail tablet on the limited basis.
“This writer has been informed that said tablet has no internet access with the exception of the ability of the defendant to contact his parents,” Whitney wrote. “It is not technically possible to use said instrument for purposes of surfing the internet or contacting anyone not permitted by jail staff.”
During the hearing, Whitney said Witchey’s contact with his family since his arrested has been “very restricted.”
He said the tablet could be issued to his client just for contacting his family and that the jail staff could monitor the access.
Assistant Prosecutor Nik Buckmeier objected, saying “the basis for this defendant’s arrest and the investigation ongoing is based on his use of electronics.”
“The very thing he wants increased access to is the very thing that he has used to commit crimes,” Buckmeier said.
“We don’t know anything about the tablet itself, how it’s monitored, how it’s regulated. Absent a thorough explanation of the process and rules and regulations regarding inmate use of the tablets, that’s another basis for the state to object.
“I don’t have the information to not object … to have confidence there’s not going to be an issue with the tablet,” Buckmeier said.
“I think he can contact his parents using the jail … using the phone,” the assistant prosecutor said.
The magistrate asked Whitney if he had evidence to present regarding how limited use of a jail tablet could be implemented.
“No, I don’t,” Whitney said. “I guess I probably should not presume that the court knew what they did down at the (county) jail.”
Cochran said she recently learned of another county jail inmate whose phone privileges had been restricted, who then used the jail-issued tablet to contact the victim in his case.
In another instance, she said, there were limits placed on a tablet.
“But the jail was not aware they had to reset those limits every 30 days. So after they 30 days, they were having issues. This is a new techology,” Cochran said.
Whitney asked for a continuance, “to have someone from the jail come in and explain the tablet usage.”
“Maybe I can get a copy of the (tablet) procedures and provide those to the state, as well, and to the court that might remove the necessity for additional hearings.”
Cochran granted the motion.
On June 25, Witchey pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity through a filing made by Whitney.
According to Ohio Revised Code Section 2901.01, “a person is ‘not guilty by reason of insanity’ … only if the person proves, … that at the time of the commission of the offense, the person did not know, as a result of a severe mental disease or defect, the wrongfulness of the person’s acts.”
Such a plea is entered early in the criminal legal process, which usually triggers the court to order an examination by a doctor. The report from that examination is made available to the court, as well as defense attorneys and prosecutors.
Whitney’s written plea also raises the issue of Witchey’s competency to stand trial.
Whitney was retained as Witchey’s attorney, replacing earlier appointed council in Mansfield Municipal Court.
According to ORC Section 2945.37, if such an issue is raised before a trial begins, the court shall hold a hearing on the issue. If the issue is raised after the trial has commenced, the court shall hold a hearing on the issue only for good cause shown, or on the court’s own motion.
“A defendant is not competent to stand trial if either or both of these are true: (1) the defendant is incapable of understanding the nature and objective of the proceedings against the defendant or (2) the defendant is incapable of assisting in the defendant’s own defense,” according to the law.
An individual judged incompetent may not be tried or convicted unless and until the individual attains competency. An individual must be competent before waiving the right to counsel or entering a guilty or no-contest plea.
“Not guilty by reason of insanity” and “competency to stand trial” are separate and independent issues in a case, according to the Ohio Criminal Sentencing Commission.
more coverage of the bryce witchey case
.
