State v. Howard

Citations

• 156 N.E.3d 433
• 2020 Ohio 3819

Syllabus

Appellant, who was convicted after a jury trial of charges including murder and felonious assault, was not denied his constitutional right to confront witnesses against him when the surviving shooting victim testified at trial via two-way closed-circuit television. The State demonstrated medical necessity for the witness to testify remotely, the witness was sworn and subjected to live cross-examination, and appellant never indicated (nor does the record suggest) that he had difficulty seeing or hearing the witness's testimony. The evidence presented was sufficient to sustain a guilty verdict, and the conviction was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Multiple witnesses testified that immediately prior to the shootings, appellant and his brother had a verbal altercation with the man who later was killed, and that appellant left in a distinctive car to follow the vehicle in which both shooting victims had departed. The surviving victim testified that bullets that struck him and the decedent were fired from the distinctive car tied to appellant. Another witness identified appellant as the driver of the distinctive car that fired upon the victims, and appellant's older brother, appearing as the sole defense witness, admitted on cross-examination that he previously said appellant was in that car at the time of the shootings. Appellant presented no other evidence. It was within the jury's province to determine the credibility of the witnesses. Appellant also did not demonstrate that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance. The examples of alleged deficiencies cited by appellant fell within the range of reasonable representation, implicated matters of trial strategy, and/or would not have altered the outcome. The cumulative effect of counsel's challenged conduct also did not deny appellant a fair trial. Finally, regarding the State's cross-appeal, the trial court erred by merging all three-year firearm specifications for purposes of sentencing. Judgm