State v. Alexander
2017 Ohio 1445
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- In April 2014, James Alexander (19) and co-defendant Willie Wilson (21) entered an apartment and shots were fired; victim Miyazhane Vance died and Brandon Fisher (injured) identified Wilson and Alexander as shooters. Alexander was present and later told police he "only watched."
- Alexander and Wilson were tried together on multiple counts including aggravated murder, murder, attempted murder, felonious assault, aggravated burglary, and kidnapping with firearm specifications.
- The jury convicted Alexander on all counts; the trial court imposed consecutive terms totaling 56 years-to-life (plus firearm specifications and postrelease control).
- Alexander moved for judgment of acquittal (Crim.R. 29), severance, and raised challenges to witness testimony, admission of gang-related testimony, the imposition of consecutive sentences, and court costs—raising sufficiency, manifest-weight, evidentiary, and sentencing errors on appeal.
- The trial included medical, ballistic, and eyewitness testimony (Fisher and Atwater), ballistics linking 9mm casings, and Detective Johnson’s gang-overview testimony limited to general gang practices (no testimony directly linking defendants to gang acts in this incident).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency / Crim.R. 29 | State: Fisher’s identification, his consistent statements, forensic evidence, and Alexander’s presence support convictions. | Alexander: No physical evidence directly ties him to the shootings; Fisher’s statements were inconsistent. | Affirmed: Evidence, viewed in state’s favor, could support convictions; Crim.R.29 denial proper. |
| Manifest weight | State: Witness testimony and corroborating physical evidence are credible. | Alexander: Testimony inconsistencies and other evidence undermine verdict; jury lost its way. | Affirmed: No exceptional circumstance; jury verdict not against the manifest weight. |
| Severance (joint trial) | State: Joinder proper because offenses arise from the same acts; overlapping evidence admissible to show identity and context. | Alexander: Evidence against Wilson spilled over and prejudiced Alexander. | Affirmed: No abuse of discretion; joinder not prejudicial. |
| Admission of gang testimony / other-acts | State: Gang-overview evidence rebuts defense theory that shooting resulted from gang war and explains context. | Alexander: Testimony was essentially other-acts or improper character evidence (R.C. 2945.59, Evid.R.404(B)). | Affirmed: Court did not abuse discretion; testimony was general gang background and not other-acts evidence tied to defendants. |
| Witness opinion on credibility | State: Detective’s comment about consistency was explanatory. | Alexander: Detective’s remarks improperly vouched for Fisher and affected credibility assessment. | Harmless error: Even if improper, no reasonable possibility it affected the verdict. |
| Consecutive sentence findings | State: Trial court considered statutory factors and stated findings at sentencing. | Alexander: Court failed to make required R.C. 2929.14 findings as amended by H.B.86. | Affirmed: Court’s oral findings and record sufficiently show required analysis; consecutive terms appropriate. |
| Court costs | State: R.C. requires inclusion of prosecution costs; court may order community service in lieu. | Alexander: Imposition infringes constitutional/statutory rights given indigency. | Affirmed: Court acted within discretion and ordered costs handled by community work service; defendant found indigent for appeal. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Bridgeman, 55 Ohio St.2d 261 (establishes sufficiency standard review)
- State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (articulates standard for sufficiency and jury review)
- State v. Leonard, 104 Ohio St.3d 54 (discusses sufficiency review and jury deference)
- State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (distinguishes sufficiency from manifest-weight review)
- State v. Lott, 51 Ohio St.3d 160 (joinder and joinder-favoring rules)
- State v. Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d 209 (requirements for consecutive-sentence findings)
- State v. Boston, 46 Ohio St.3d 108 (prohibits witnesses vouching for others’ credibility)