State v. Brown, 2013 Ohio 1099

Defendant Nathaniel S. Brown was convicted of aggravated murder, aggravated robbery, kidnapping, felonious assault, and gross abuse of a corpse after a party-related crime spree involving Basinger and Shirer.
The trio abducted, assaulted, and killed William Putzbach, using duct tape, a chain, and a hammer; Putzbach’s body was found bound and beaten in a trunk.
Evidence included DNA on a hammer, blood spatter analysis, bank and ATM records, and security footage from the apartment and a metropark.
Brown admitted to being in the vehicle but denied participation in the murder; he claimed Basinger acted alone in the killing.
The trial court merged some counts and sentenced Brown to life without parole plus additional terms; the judgment was reversed and remanded for a new trial.
A Bruton-related confrontation arose from statements by a co-defendant implicating Brown, admitted via a police interrogation video.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether lay testimony was improperly admitted as expert testimony	State contends witnesses provided expert analysis (bloodstain, DNA) properly.	Brown argues witnesses were not properly qualified as experts and not admitted with proper foundation.	No abuse; expert qualifications on record established admissibility.
Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to Bruton-related testimony	State asserts admission of Shirer’s statements was non-prejudicial or harmless beyond doubt.	Brown contends Bruton violation occurred, undermining fair trial; counsel should have objected.	Bruton issue sustained; admission prejudicial; ineffective assistance; reversal and remand required.
Whether there was sufficient evidence to sustain the aggravated murder conviction	State asserts the record shows Brown actively participated in the assault and robbery.	Brown argues the evidence does not prove planning or participation beyond reasonable doubt.	Evidence insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt; weight of evidence insufficient after Bruton error; remand for new trial.
Whether other assigned errors affecting prejudicial evidence merit reversal	State claims various evidentiary issues were properly admitted or harmless.	Brown argues multiple evidentiary errors cumulatively prejudiced the defense.	Given Bruton error and overall record, remand for new trial; remaining issues moot.

Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 (1968) (non-testifying codefendant’s incriminating statement violates confrontation)
Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) (confrontation rights limited to testimonial statements)
State v. Biros, 78 Ohio St.3d 426 (1997) (blood-spatter testimony admissible as expert testimony under Evid.R. 702)
State v. Moritz, 63 Ohio St.2d 150 (1980) (Bruton scope applies to co-defendant statements that significantly incriminate)
State v. Drummond, 111 Ohio St.3d 14 (2006) (Bruton rule applicability and confrontation considerations clarified)