Final pretrial hearing held in former Highland County deputy's reckless homicide case

A final pretrial hearing in the reckless homicide case against former Highland County deputy sheriff Jonathan Dustin Malone was conducted Tuesday morning in Highland County Common Pleas Court, with discussions indicating that the case is likely proceeding to trial.

Malone appeared before Highland County Common Pleas Court Judge Rocky Coss, represented by counsel Joshua Engel and Robert Merkle. Special prosecutor Chris Kinsler, Assistant Section Chief of the Ohio Attorney General’s Office Special Prosecutions Section, was present on behalf of the state.

During the pretrial hearing, attorneys discussed plans for the trial, including the number of witnesses, scheduling concerns for out-of-state experts for the defense, the possibility of having witnesses testify via Zoom and other logistical matters.

The trial is slated to begin with voir dire Aug. 7 at 8 a.m. and is anticipated to span multiple days. The judge explained how jury selection is handled in his court, with Coss saying he expected to seat three alternates for the jury.

“I think we can wrap testimony up around Thursday morning,” Coss said.

As a result, the judge ordered counsel to “reach out to each and every one of the witnesses” subpoenaed in the case to notify them of the day they are to testify, since the subpoenas are issued for Monday at 8 a.m. The judge wanted to ensure that all of the witnesses are not arriving at the courthouse the first day and potentially waiting multiple days to take the stand.

“I’m not going to stand for it,” Coss said. “It’s not necessary and not fair to them. I don’t know where we’d put them all.”

The judge and counsel for both parties also reviewed upcoming deadlines for submitting exhibits and any motions.

“For any kind of potential plea, the deadline for that is two weeks prior to trial,” Coss told the attorneys.

As previously reported, Malone pleaded not guilty to a bill of information charging him with the third-degree felony charge of reckless homicide March 23. The bill of information, filed by special prosecutor Anthony Pierson, Assistant Ohio Attorney General, alleges that on or about July 17 and in Highland County, Malone “did recklessly cause the death of Richard Poulin, in violation of ORC 2903.041.” (Pierson later withdrew as special prosecutor after accepting another job with the Franklin County Prosecutor’s Office.)

As previously reported by The Highland County Press, it was alleged that Poulin, 58, was fatally shot by a Highland County deputy sheriff on July 17, 2022.

The alleged incident began as a traffic violation stop. A subsequent pursuit ended near 5760 U.S. 62, Hillsboro, at which point the shooting allegedly occurred.

Engel filed a motion to dismiss and a request for an evidentiary hearing April 11, arguing that Highland County Coroner Dr. Jeff Beery “concluded the manner of death was suicide” and indicated as such in the death certificate and a memorandum to the Bureau of Criminal Investigation. Engel further filed a request for an evidentiary hearing as part of the “process for dismissal.”

In response, the Ohio Attorney General’s Office filed a memorandum in opposition of the defense’s motion, arguing that the defense “is requesting this court take an action that is not permissible under the criminal rules,” that the basis for the defense’s motion is “inadmissible hearsay” and that Beery’s “cause of death finding is not relevant” to the case.

Engel then filed a response to Pierson’s motion. In it, he argued that the state did not provide “any evidence suggesting that the manner of death determined by the coroner is incorrect.”

On April 25, Coss ruled that the evidentiary hearing is “not necessary or appropriate to determine the motion” because “the entire basis for the motion is the finding of the Coroner in the death certificate that the manner of death of the decedent was suicide.”

Coss concluded his decision by stating that the findings in the death certificate “are not binding on the parties in a court proceeding” and that “it would not be in the interests of justice for this Court to dismiss this case without allowing the State the opportunity to present its evidence at a trial.”