State v. Barnette
2014 Ohio 5673
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- Barnette was indicted for two counts of aggravated murder (with death specifications), kidnapping, aggravated robbery, and arson for the 2009 killings of Jaron Roland and Darry Woods; a jury convicted him and he was sentenced to life without parole plus consecutive terms on other counts.
- At trial the State relied on witness Alfonda Madison (who had a plea agreement) and DNA evidence analyzed by BCI analysts using FBI CODIS-derived population frequency statistics.
- During trial Barnette sought to impeach Youngstown Police Lt. John Kelty with an Internal Affairs reprimand and subpoenaed records relating to alleged overtime misconduct; the court excluded that evidence as unrelated and not probative of untruthfulness.
- After Madison testified, Barnette moved to reopen the case to introduce evidence that Madison had been charged with crimes around his testimony date; the trial court denied reopening, citing Evid.R. 608(B) and lack of prejudice.
- Barnette moved in limine to bar BCI analysts from testifying about FBI/CODIS population frequency estimates (arguing Confrontation Clause concerns); the court allowed the testimony, treating the statistics as non-testimonial and weight not admissibility issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Motion to reopen to impeach Madison with new charges | State: Evidence of mere accusations is inadmissible extrinsic evidence under Evid.R. 608(B); no prejudice | Barnette: Madison's recent criminal conduct contradicts his claim he was afraid to testify and affects credibility | Court: Denied reopening — extrinsic evidence of unconvicted conduct inadmissible and no prejudice shown |
| Cross-examination of Lt. Kelty with Internal Affairs reprimand | State: Reprimand unrelated to truthfulness and occurred after investigation; IA did not find untruthfulness | Barnette: Reprimand probative of Kelty's character for untruthfulness under Evid.R. 608(B) | Court: Exclusion affirmed — reprimand not clearly probative of untruthfulness and unrelated to case |
| Admission of BCI testimony about FBI/CODIS population frequency estimates | State: Such testimony is routine, non-testimonial, and goes to weight; impractical to require FBI witness | Barnette: Statistics are FBI-generated and testimonial; lack of opportunity to cross-examine the database creators violates Confrontation Clause | Court: Denied motion in limine — population frequency estimates are non-testimonial; admissible and challengeable on weight |
Key Cases Cited
- Columbus v. Grant, 1 Ohio App.3d 96 (1981) (trial court's reopening of case is discretionary)
- Boggs v. State, 63 Ohio St.3d 418 (1992) (Evid.R. 608(B) permits but does not require cross-examination on specific conduct; probative of truthfulness required)
- Montgomery v. State, 61 Ohio St.3d 410 (1991) (must show prejudice to prevail on a claim that denial to reopen deprived defendant of a fair trial)
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) (testimonial statements require prior cross-examination for Confrontation Clause compliance)
- Pointer v. Texas, 380 U.S. 400 (1965) (Sixth Amendment confrontation right applies to states)
- State v. Foust, 105 Ohio St.3d 137 (2004) (an expert may testify to DNA statistics without being a statistics expert; reliability affects weight)
- State v. Pierce, 64 Ohio St.3d 490 (1992) (questions about DNA population statistics go to weight rather than admissibility)