State v. Bew, 2022 Ohio 753

Background

On July 16, 2020, Ravenna police stopped a vehicle and during a search heard two volleys of gunfire; officers reported bullets whizzing near and over their heads. Bodycam/dashcam audio captured the gunfire.
Spent casings and one live round were recovered ~900–920 feet from the stop on the Portage Hike and Bike Trail; a red Kia seen earlier was linked to the scene and to appellant Aiden Bew.
Bew was arrested after the car's driver (Austin Horn) identified transporting someone called “Bubs,” and Bew admitted to firing a gun at the scene but claimed he fired into the ground and that the gun malfunctioned or recoiled.
Four officers testified they felt or heard projectiles close enough to possibly strike or pass over them; recordings corroborated nearby gunfire.
A jury convicted Bew of four counts of felonious assault (deadly weapon) but was hung on attempted aggravated murder; Bew was sentenced to 28 years and appealed raising claims of ineffective assistance, improper leading/expert testimony, insufficiency, and manifest weight.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Bew)	Held
Whether counsel was ineffective for not objecting to numerous leading questions	Failure to object was trial strategy; most leading questions were harmless; no prejudice under Strickland	Counsel’s failure to object to many leading questions and to Svab’s testimony deprived Bew of effective assistance	No ineffective assistance: counsel’s conduct was reasonable strategy and no prejudice shown
Whether trial court erred by permitting leading/speculative questions on direct	Court has broad discretion under Evid.R. 611(C); most leading questions were orienting or harmless; two overrulings did not affect outcome	Leading and prosecutor-driven statements turned into substantive testimony and unfairly prejudiced the defense	No reversible error: trial court acted within discretion; improper questions, where present, were not outcome-determinative
Whether lay testimony by Detective Svab amounted to inadmissible expert opinion	Svab’s statements were rooted in his training, experience, and his own ballistic tests; testimony was admissible as lay opinion helpful to jurors	Svab gave expert-type testimony (muzzle velocity, effective range) without qualification, requiring exclusion	No error: testimony was admissible as lay opinion based on perception, testing, and experience; objections would not have changed result
Whether evidence was constitutionally insufficient and verdict against manifest weight	Evidence (officer testimony, recordings, Bew’s admissions) was sufficient to allow reasonable juror to find attempt to cause harm by deadly weapon; weight favors prosecution	A building and other facts made it practically impossible bullets could have struck or threatened officers; endpoint/trajectory not proven	Convictions supported: evidence sufficient and not against manifest weight; jury reasonably credited officers and recordings

Key Cases Cited

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two‑part ineffective assistance standard: deficient performance and prejudice)
State v. D’Ambrosio, 67 Ohio St.3d 185 (1993) (trial court has discretion to permit leading questions on direct)
State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (1997) (weight of the evidence standard; appellate court as thirteenth juror)
State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (1991) (sufficiency standard: view evidence in light most favorable to prosecution)
State v. Barnes, 94 Ohio St.3d 21 (2002) (plain‑error affects substantial rights when it affects outcome)
State v. Rogers, 143 Ohio St.3d 385 (2015) (plain‑error review and standard for correcting unobjected‑to error)
State v. McKee, 91 Ohio St.3d 292 (2001) (permissible scope of lay opinion testimony grounded in firsthand observation and experience)
State v. Bradley, 42 Ohio St.3d 136 (1989) (standard for proving ineffective assistance of counsel)