2014 Ohio 3132
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- Devin Brothers was tried on consolidated indictments for multiple rapes, kidnappings, aggravated robberies, and related offenses arising from attacks on several young women in Cleveland in Oct–Nov 2011. Cases CR-561089 and CR-564362 proceeded together; sexually violent predator specifications were tried to the bench.
- Jury convicted Brothers on all counts related to victims A.B. and M.M.; the trial court found sexually violent predator specifications true and imposed an aggregate 45-years-to-life sentence. Some counts and firearm specifications were merged for sentencing.
- A.B. (Oct. 23, 2011) testified she was raped and robbed; forensic testing recovered semen on vaginal/anal swabs and a ground stain. BCI analysts matched Brothers’ DNA to the sperm fraction on the ground stain and to mixtures from skin swabs.
- M.M. (Nov. 3, 2011) identified Brothers in a photo array and in court; BCI testified Brothers could not be excluded as the source of semen on anal swabs with extremely low random-match probabilities.
- Brothers testified he had consensual sex at the ground-stain location the night before A.B.’s assault and claimed consensual sex with M.M.; he offered no corroborating details. Police apprehended Brothers after surveillance and a citizen encounter.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Brothers) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence (A.B.) | DNA at scene + victim testimony suffices to prove guilt | DNA alone does not prove rape; victim couldn’t ID him in court | Conviction upheld: viewed in light most favorable to prosecution, evidence sufficient |
| Manifest weight (A.B.) | DNA + victim testimony + other witness evidence support verdict | Verdict against weight given DNA could show ejaculation only and credibility issues | Conviction not against manifest weight; jury not unreasonable to reject defense account |
| Admissibility of DNA frequency statistics / Confrontation Clause | BCI witnesses may testify using FBI-derived population statistics; such data is non-testimonial/business-records or background for expert opinion | Admission violated Crawford because FBI did not testify about database/software/methods | Admissible: statistical/database evidence not testimonial; experts may rely on published FBI data/software; no Crawford violation |
| Reliance on expert statistical software/data | Experts may present population frequency statistics and explain inclusion | Defendant sought confrontation/foundation for FBI data/software | Court affirmed expert testimony; other jurisdictions and Ohio precedent permit such reliance |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (Ohio 1991) (sufficiency-of-evidence standard for criminal convictions)
- State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (Ohio 1997) (distinguishes sufficiency and manifest-weight review)
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (U.S. 2004) (Confrontation Clause bars testimonial hearsay unless witness unavailable and defendant had chance to cross-examine)
- State v. Crager, 116 Ohio St.3d 369 (Ohio 2007) (DNA reports as business records may be non-testimonial under Crawford)
- Wilson v. Collins, 517 F.3d 421 (6th Cir. 2008) (DNA samples are physical, non-testimonial evidence for Fifth Amendment purposes)
- Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (U.S. 1966) (blood tests and similar physical evidence are non-testimonial)
- Seasons Coal Co. v. Cleveland, 10 Ohio St.3d 77 (Ohio 1984) (trial court best placed to assess witness credibility and demeanor)