In re K.S., 2012 Ohio 2388

In re K.S., a 14-year-old juvenile, was charged with multiple counts of felonious assault, improperly discharging into a habitation, and receiving stolen property following a drive-by shooting and thefts on August 23, 2010.
Ramone Taylor, the driver of the involved vehicle, named K.S. as the shooter in a written statement that was later recanted.
Taylor testified at trial that he and K.S. were friends and that Taylor fabricated the shooter’s identity to gain favorable treatment at sentencing.
The trial court sua sponte nolle'd several firearm specifications and adjudicated K.S. delinquent on some counts while dismissing others, then sentenced to ODYS.
The State impeached Taylor with his prior written statement, treated him as an adverse witness, and admitted the prior statement as substantive evidence, which the appellate court later found improper.
The court reversed the delinquency adjudications and remanded for a new trial, noting sufficiency of evidence notwithstanding some improper evidence and addressing in-court identification issues.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court improperly admitted and used a prior inconsistent statement.	K.S. argues Taylor’s recanted statement should be excluded and not read as substantive evidence.	The State contends Taylor was adverse to the State and the prior statement could be used for impeachment and as substantive evidence.	Error; admission and use as substantive evidence improper.
Whether Evid.R. 607(A) was violated by reading Taylor’s prior statement into evidence.	The State shouldn’t be allowed to read the prior statement since surprise was not shown.	Impeachment of an adverse witness via leading questions and prior statements is permissible.	Violation of Evid.R. 607(A); improper impeachment technique.
Whether the trial court’s errors require reversal given sufficiency of the evidence.	Even with improper evidence, the state’s testimony suffices to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.	Without the admissible evidence, there is insufficient proof of elements.	Sufficiency found; reversal for trial errors; new trial ordered.

State v. Darkenwald, ? (8th Dist. No. 83440, 2004-Ohio-2693) (distinguishes impeachment vs leading to coherence of prior statements; surprise requirement for Evid.R. 607(A))
State v. Stearns, ? (8th Dist. 1982) (adverse witness can be questioned with leading questions under Evid.R. 611)
State v. Coleman, ? (8th Dist. No. 94730, 2011-Ohio-709) (prior inconsistent statement admissible only for impeachment, not as substantive evidence under Evid.R. 607)
State v. Dearmond, ? (2011-Ohio-5519) (prior inconsistent statements not admissible as substantive evidence under Evid.R. 607)
State v. Kelly, ? (No. 85662, 2006-Ohio-5902) (prior inconsistent statement not admissible as substantive evidence)