State v. Brown, 2015 Ohio 365

On Aug. 3, 2013, Jamarcus Brown fled after an alleged shoplifting and drove a vehicle into a Monroe police officer; the officer landed on the hood and later shot Brown to stop the car. Brown was indicted for failure to comply (3rd‑deg.), assault (4th‑deg.), and felonious assault (1st‑deg.).
Two‑day jury trial held Nov. 21–22, 2013. On day two, Juror No. 6 saw Brown being brought into the courtroom in restraints while being transported; Brown was not shackled during the trial itself.
The trial court questioned Juror No. 6 on the record; juror said the viewing was brief, he had not discussed it with other jurors, and he could remain impartial. Defense did not move to replace the juror.
Jury convicted Brown of failure to comply (with a finding of substantial risk), and assault (victim a police officer); acquitted on felonious assault.
At sentencing, the prosecutor and court referenced Brown’s prior flight convictions and a pending Montgomery County charge for fleeing police. The court imposed consecutive terms: 24 months (failure to comply) + 12 months (assault) = 36 months total.
Brown appealed, raising (1) juror exposure to restraints and (2) improper consideration of an unrelated pending charge at sentencing. The appellate court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether court erred by allowing a juror to remain after briefly seeing defendant in restraints	State: exposure was brief, inadvertent, and the court cured any prejudice by voir dire; juror remained impartial	Brown: juror’s view of him in restraints violated due process and required removal	Court: no plain error; exposure was brief/inadvertent, juror said he was impartial, no prejudice shown; conviction upheld
Whether trial court abused discretion by considering an unrelated pending criminal charge at sentencing	State: pending charge relevant to recidivism and sentencing factors; courts may consider such charges	Brown: referencing unresolved charge violated presumption of innocence and led to harsher sentence	Court: permitted to consider pending charges under R.C. 2929.12(D) and sentencing principles; record shows statutory factors considered and sentence within range; sentence not contrary to law

Deck v. Missouri, 544 U.S. 622 (due process prohibits visible restraints before jury absent case‑specific justification)
Kidder v. State, 32 Ohio St.3d 279 (brief/inadvertent exposure to restraints outside courtroom presents slight prejudice risk)
Lane v. Ohio, 60 Ohio St.2d 112 (presumption of innocence as fundamental component of criminal prosecution)
Coffin v. United States, 156 U.S. 432 (presumption of innocence principle)