State v. Brand
2016 Ohio 7456
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Early May 2014: Two armed men entered Courtney McKinney’s apartment to rob known drug dealer Keelin Broach; Broach and Beyoncia Willis were shot and killed; McKinney escaped after being shot and later identified the assailants as Baron Brand and Devin Isome.
- McKinney viewed the suspects in well-lit stairwell and apartment areas; both assailants wore hoodies tied under their chins but McKinney testified she could see Brand’s face.
- Photographic lineups (blind-administered) led McKinney to identify Brand in one lineup and Isome in another; Brand moved to suppress the ID but the trial court denied the motion.
- Physical evidence: uncommon DRT-brand .380 cartridge cases at the scene; DRT ammo, a .380 Bersa pistol, heroin, and cash later found at Brand’s residence; Brand allegedly admitted ownership of the gun/ammo/heroin.
- Jailhouse testimony: an inmate (Christopher Hill) testified Brand admitted participating, taking heroin/money, and shooting victims to eliminate witnesses.
- Brand was convicted by a jury of aggravated murder (two counts), felonious assault (with specifications), aggravated robbery, and weapons-under-disability counts; court also found him a repeat violent offender and sentenced him accordingly.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency/manifest weight of evidence | Evidence (eyewitness ID, DRT ammo match, Brand’s admissions) supports convictions | ID unreliable (height/lighting, intoxication), no proof of theft | Convictions supported; evidence sufficient and not against manifest weight |
| Admission of other-acts evidence (prior 2010 robbery/shooting) | Prior conviction probative of identity/modus operandi | Prior act dissimilar; unfairly prejudicial character evidence | Trial court abused discretion admitting it, but error was harmless given overwhelming other evidence |
| Read-back of McKinney’s testimony during deliberations | Read-back necessary to answer jury’s question about what McKinney said | Read-back unduly emphasized her testimony out of context | Read-back was within trial court’s discretion and not error |
| Prosecutorial misconduct (closing, hearsay, officer testimony) | Prosecutor’s remarks and questioning were proper and within latitude; some testimony admissible for nonhearsay purposes | Remarks and elicited testimony were improper and prejudicial | No prosecutorial misconduct that affected substantial rights; claims fail |
| Suppression of photographic identification | Lineup was not unduly suggestive; blind administration and lack of height markers supported admissibility | Lineup unduly suggestive because photos didn’t match prior descriptions | Lineup not unduly suggestive; suppression properly denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Martin v. Ohio, 20 Ohio App.3d 172 (discusses sufficiency review standard) (Note: state case used for sufficiency standard)
- Thompkins v. Ohio, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (establishes manifest-weight-review standard)
- Noling v. Ohio, 98 Ohio St.3d 44 (standard for abuse-of-discretion review of evidentiary rulings)
- Lowe v. Ohio, 69 Ohio St.3d 527 (other-acts evidence admissible to prove identity via modus operandi)
- Smith v. Ohio, 49 Ohio St.3d 137 (other-acts must share common features to show identity)
- Bryan v. Ohio, 101 Ohio St.3d 272 (harmless-error framework for improperly admitted evidence)
- Black v. Ohio, 85 Ohio App.3d 771 (trial court may read back testimony during deliberations)
- Burnside v. Ohio, 100 Ohio St.3d 152 (standard for mixed questions of law and fact on suppression rulings)
- Perry v. New Hampshire, 565 U.S. 228 (framework for evaluating eyewitness-identification challenges)