State v. Bradley, 2015 Ohio 395

On June 4, 2011, a confidential informant told authorities that James Young and Anthony Henson were cooking crack at Lutricia Bradley’s Sandusky residence and would later travel with an ounce or two of crack.
Police stopped Young and Henson in a vehicle; a K-9 alerted and a baggie of suspected crack was recovered from Henson; Young was arrested for permitting drug use.
Officers returned to Bradley’s home, knocked, heard movement and allegedly heard someone warn “it’s the police,” then entered without a warrant and observed Bradley allegedly shoving suspected crack down a sink; Bradley refused a consent search.
Officers later obtained a search warrant and seized drugs, paraphernalia, firearms, cash, and items linking Young to the residence; Bradley’s bedroom did not contain the seized items.
Young and Bradley were tried jointly after consolidation; both were convicted. Bradley received community control and appealed, raising consolidation and sufficiency/weight arguments.
Although the court found consolidation was not plain error, it reversed and remanded because, sua sponte and following its companion decision in State v. Young, it held the searches/seizures were unlawful and the motions to suppress should have been granted.

Issue	State's Argument	Bradley's Argument	Held
Was consolidation of Bradley’s and Young’s trials plain error?	Joinder was proper under Crim.R. 8/13 because offenses arose from the same transaction; evidence (e.g., guns) was admitted only as to Young and did not prejudice Bradley.	Consolidation unfairly cumulated evidence (notably firearms found in the home) that would not have been admissible against Bradley alone, causing prejudice.	Not plain error; consolidation within trial court’s discretion because the charges arose from the same course of conduct and shared witnesses.
Should Bradley’s motion to suppress evidence from the warrantless entry and subsequent search have been granted?	Evidence and searches were lawful or not sufficiently prejudicial; alternatively, suppression exceptions apply.	The entry, detention, arrest, and search were unlawful; evidence should be excluded.	Court (sua sponte, following State v. Young) held the warrantless entry/detentions/arrests lacked proper justification, the warrant affidavit failed, and suppression should have been granted; reversed and remanded.
Must Bradley’s remaining weight/sufficiency challenge be decided?	State did not prevail on suppression; evidence admissibility would affect any weight review.	Bradley argued convictions not supported by weight of evidence.	Court did not address the second assignment because it reversed on suppression grounds and remanded.

State v. Landrum, 53 Ohio St.3d 107 (Ohio 1990) (Crim.R. 52(B) plain-error invoked only in exceptional circumstances to prevent a manifest miscarriage of justice)
Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 (U.S. 1968) (rule limiting admission of co-defendant’s statements that implicate another defendant)
State v. Thomas, 61 Ohio St.2d 223 (Ohio 1980) (joinder of defendants generally favored to conserve judicial resources and avoid inconsistent results)
Chemical Bank of New York v. Neman, 52 Ohio St.3d 204 (Ohio 1990) (appellate courts may, in their discretion, address issues not raised in briefs)