State v. Alexander, 2012 Ohio 460

Alexander was convicted by jury in Hamilton County for aggravated murder, murder, attempted murder, and aggravated robbery with firearm specs.
The crimes involved the deaths of Davenport and Gaines and serious injuries to Willis, allegedly committed by Alexander and accomplice Wilson.
A feud over $200 in drug money preceded the shootings; witnesses testified Alexander threatened Davenport and participated in the plan.
Alexander surrendered and confessed; defense claimed Wilson possessed the gun and Alexander tried to restrain him.
The trial court’s sentence: life without parole for aggravated murder, 15 years to life for murder, 2 x 10 years for attempted murder and aggravated robbery, plus firearm specs.
Defendant challenged several trial rulings on suppression of statements, evidence admissibility, prosecutorial conduct, weight of the evidence, complicity instructions, sentencing, juror removal, and motion for new trial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Alexander’s confession was voluntary	State argues confession was voluntary and not coerced.	Alexander argues confession was coerced and inadmissible.	Conviction affirmed; confession properly admitted.
Whether Davenport’s statement to Sadler was admissible as present sense impression	State contends the statement falls within present sense impression.	Alexander contends it was hearsay and improperly admitted.	Admissible; consistent with present sense impression.
Whether prosecutorial conduct deprived defendant of a fair trial	State asserts no improper remarks affected fairness.	Alexander argues improper closing remarks and misstatement of testimony.	No reversible prosecutorial misconduct; no due process violation found.
Whether the weight of the evidence supports the convictions	State presented sufficient evidence of shootings and theft with prior calculation and design.	Alexander contends convictions were against the manifest weight.	Convictions are not against the manifest weight; supported by evidence.
Whether the jury instruction on complicity was appropriate	State presented evidence Alexander acted in concert with Wilson; complicity instruction warranted.	Alexander argues instruction was improper because case theory was principal offender.	Instruction on complicity proper and warranted.

State v. Edwards, 49 Ohio St.2d 31 (Ohio 1976) (totality of circumstances for voluntariness; due process)
State v. Combs, 62 Ohio St.3d 278 (Ohio 1991) (coercion standard for confession)
State v. Stafford, 158 Ohio App.3d 509 (1st Dist. 2004) (broad trial court discretion for evidence rulings)
Lego v. Twomey, 404 U.S. 477 (U.S. 1972) (confession voluntariness and totality of circumstances)
State v. Sage, 31 Ohio St.3d 173 (Ohio 1987) (evidentiary rules for present sense impressions)