State v. Belcher, 2014 Ohio 5596

In Dec. 2012, Nicholas’s attached-garage truck was stolen by a man described as wearing white Adidas shoes with black stripes; the truck caused damage to the garage and a car during a high-speed exit.
Witnesses Lowell and Allen identified Belcher from a photo array as the man seen near the incident; Prentice could not identify the suspect.
Belcher was arrested at his apartment on outstanding warrants; Adidas shoes matching the witnesses’ description were seized in plain view during the arrest.
A booking photo of Belcher was used in a photo array; officers testified to the array procedure, witnesses identified Belcher, and the defense challenged potential unduly suggestive elements.
Belcher was convicted at trial of aggravated burglary, aggravated robbery, robbery, felonious assault, and grand theft of a motor vehicle; the trial court sentenced him to 17 years.
On appeal, Belcher challenges suppression rulings, identifications, confrontation rights, sufficiency, weight, and merger for sentencing; the court remands on merger and vacates one conviction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Suppression of evidence	Belcher: shoes seized in plain view were illegally seized.	Belcher: conflicting officer recollections undermine credibility to support plain-view seizure.	Shoes in plain view were supported by competent evidence; suppression not warranted.
Photo array reliability	State: procedure was proper; no unduly suggestive elements; booking photo used appropriately.	Belcher: lighting/shadow could make photo stand out and bias witnesses.	Array not unduly suggestive; no reversal for suppression; reliability goes to weight.
Confrontation rights and informant identity	Informant tip led to investigation; identity not necessary to establish probable cause.	Belcher: informant's identity should be disclosed if testimony is vital to elements or defense.	No abuse of discretion; informant was a tipster, not a witness essential to guilt; disclosure not required.
Merger of offenses	The felonious assault and aggravated robbery/ burglary may be separate offenses.	Belcher: should merge felonious assault with aggravated robbery due to single conduct; aggravated burglary cannot stand.	aggravated burglary conviction held invalid; felonious assault and aggravated robbery should have merged; remand for merger and sentencing; conviction vacated as to aggravated burglary.

State v. Heflin, 2011-Ohio-4134 (6th Dist. Lucas) (photo array admissibility and reliability standard; unduly suggestive analysis)
State v. Williams, 4 Ohio St.3d 74 (1983) (informant identity disclosure where necessary for defense)
State v. Payne, 2005-Ohio-7043 (6th Dist. Lucas) (informant identity not required when tip does not aid defense; Probable cause analysis)
State v. Wills, 120 Ohio App.3d 320 (8th Dist. 1997) (reliability versus admissibility of eyewitness identifications)
State v. Johnson, 128 Ohio St.3d 153 (2010) (two-step allied-offense analysis under R.C. 2941.25; same conduct and single state of mind)