State v. King

Citations

• 2022 Ohio 3178

Syllabus

The trial court did not err by denying appellant's motion to suppress a size 13 shoe located on appellant's front porch, nor did the trial court err in instructing the jury on complicity or by excluding certain double hearsay statements, where a detective moving a shoe to take a photograph of the shoe's sole did not constitute a warrantless search, where the trial court's instruction on complicity fairly and correctly stated the law, and where the exclusion of certain double hearsay statements constituted, at worst, harmless error given the overwhelming evidence indicating appellant was the principal offender who killed the victim by shooting the victim in the head and neck. This included, among other evidence, the discovery of appellant's fingerprints and DNA on the victim's vehicle's driver's side doorhandle.