State v. Albright, 2016 Ohio 7037

Background

Police responded to an anonymous 10:46 p.m. call reporting a wild party with underage drinking at a described house; officers intended to "knock and talk."
On arrival they saw cars lining the long driveway and two young males in the front yard; the officer believed the males appeared under 21 and asked them to speak, and they fled down the driveway.
Officer Mrakovich pursued the two into the driveway; Michael Albright (21) came out, stood between parked cars, verbally confronted officers, raised his arms and twice touched/pushed an officer, and ordered officers off the property.
Officers maneuvered around Albright to continue pursuit; they heard bottles breaking in the backyard and encountered ~12–15 people; Albright told partygoers not to speak and to videotape the officers.
Jury convicted Albright of obstructing official business (R.C. 2921.31); acquitted on assault. Trial counsel did not move to suppress or object to a police report; Albright was sentenced to 90 days and a $750 fine.
On appeal Albright argued insufficient evidence (privilege/curtilage and lack of probable cause), ineffective assistance for failing to suppress/object, and sentencing error for denial of allocution; court affirmed conviction but remanded for resentencing due to allocution error.

Issues

Issue	State's Argument	Albright's Argument	Held
Sufficiency — Was conviction supported where Albright blocked officers entering curtilage?	Officers lawfully approached via driveway (implicit license); flight + noises gave at least reasonable suspicion and then probable cause/hot pursuit to enter backyard; Albright actively impeded duties.	Albright had privilege to deny entry to curtilage; warrantless entry into curtilage required probable cause to arrest the fleeing males and was lacking from an anonymous tip + flight.	Court: Evidence sufficient. Officers could use driveway; Terry-level suspicion existed and facts supported hot-pursuit/probable-cause progression or, at minimum, obstruction occurred in non-curtilage area (driveway).
Ineffective assistance — Failure to move to suppress statements made after entry	No prejudice: counsel reasonably investigated and pursued a defense based on asserting rights; statements were consistent with defense; strong evidence of obstruction already existed independent of those statements.	Counsel erred by not moving to suppress statements made after an allegedly unlawful entry.	Court: No deficient performance or no prejudice shown. Strategy to admit/exploit statements plausible; obstruction proven from conduct in driveway.
Ineffective assistance — Failure to object to police report admission	Counsel cross-examined using report and reasonably chose not to object; report was cumulative to witness testimony so any error was not prejudicial.	Admission of report violated Evid.R. 803(8) and prejudiced the defense.	Court: No deficient performance or prejudice; failure to object was a reasonable strategic choice and report was cumulative.
Sentencing/Allocution — Did court violate Crim.R. 32(A)(1) by imposing sentence without asking defendant/counsel to speak?	State concedes allocution was denied and remand appropriate.	Court failed to personally address Albright or afford counsel an opportunity before pronouncing sentence.	Court: Error; allocution right violated. Sentence reversed and case remanded for resentencing.

Key Cases Cited

Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (investigatory stop standard — reasonable, articulable suspicion)
Santana v. United States, 427 U.S. 38 (hot-pursuit arrest at dwelling threshold permits entry)
Oliver v. United States, 466 U.S. 170 (distinction between curtilage and open fields)
United States v. Dunn, 480 U.S. 294 (four-factor curtilage test)
Florida v. Jardines, 569 U.S. 1 (implicit license to approach and knock; scope of curtilage protection)
State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (sufficiency vs. weight of evidence standard in Ohio)
State v. Goff, 82 Ohio St.3d 123 (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence in Ohio)
State v. Green, 90 Ohio St.3d 352 (allocution under Crim.R. 32(A)(1) is mandatory)