State v. Brown
2017 Ohio 8416
Ohio Ct. App.2017Background
- On July 31, 2015, paramedics found Dawn Howard severely injured in her apartment; Larry C. Brown, Jr. was present, had bathed her, and called 911. Howard suffered life‑altering head and facial injuries and later required decompressive craniotomy.
- Evidence included: 911 recording (Brown identifying himself as Howard’s boyfriend and saying “she’s mine”), surveillance video from a bar showing Brown and Howard together the night before, blood and hair on Brown’s pickup, rope and hammer in the truck, and DNA linking Brown to Howard.
- Brown gave inconsistent statements about his whereabouts and conduct before and after the injury, wrote a handwritten emotional note found at the apartment, and admitted to bathing Howard before calling 911.
- He was indicted on felonious assault (R.C. 2903.11(A)(1)) and tampering with evidence (R.C. 2921.12(A)(1)); jury convicted on both counts.
- Sentenced to 8 years (felonious assault) + 3 years (tampering) to run consecutively (total 11 years). Brown appealed, raising sufficiency/weight, venue, failure to preserve evidence, prosecutorial misconduct, ineffective assistance, sentencing errors, and cumulative error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Brown) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency and manifest weight of evidence for felonious assault | Evidence (truck damage not present earlier, Howard’s blood in/ on truck, rope with blood, inconsistent statements, motive/possessiveness) supports knowing causation | State failed to prove Brown caused Howard’s injuries or acted knowingly; alternative explanations (fall, other persons) plausible | Conviction upheld; evidence (including circumstantial) sufficient and verdict not against manifest weight |
| Venue for felonious assault | County inference: bar, Howard’s home, Brown’s home all in Clark County; R.C. 2901.12(B) covers offenses in a vehicle in transit | Argues truck must have been stationary to hit Howard, so statute inapplicable and venue not proved | Venue satisfied; R.C. 2901.12(B) applies because vehicle in transit can stop and still be ‘‘in transit’’; circumstantial proof adequate |
| Failure to preserve/examine additional bar surveillance | State reviewed and copied relevant footage; no evidence of destruction; missing footage speculative and unlikely to change result | Prosecutor failed to preserve/produce potentially exculpatory portions of bar video that might show lack of hostility | Denied—no bad faith or destruction; missing footage speculative and not material under Brady |
| Prosecutorial misconduct (various) | State argued facts and theory; timely disclosed new witness leads; trial court offered continuance; jury correctly instructed | Misstatements: misstating reasonable doubt; overstating single‑blow theory; failing to disclose/using witness; leading questions about hostility | No prejudicial misconduct: disclosure was timely; court cured any improper testimony and correctly instructed jury; misstatements were not outcome‑determinative |
| Sentencing (maximum and consecutive) | Trial court considered R.C. 2929.11/2929.12, PSI showing criminal history and risk, and required findings for consecutive terms | Sentences excessive and findings not supported | Affirmed: sentences within statutory ranges; record supports maximum and consecutive terms under Marcum and R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel | Defense strategy reasonable; counsel investigated and declined motions when unsupported; defendant not prejudiced | Counsel failed to investigate, prepare, or move to suppress statements and evidence | Denied—Strickland standard not met; no showing of deficient performance or prejudice |
| Cumulative error | Individually non‑prejudicial errors combined to deprive fair trial | Errors compounded and require reversal | Denied—court found no multiple prejudicial errors to aggregate |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (Ohio 1991) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
- State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (Ohio 1997) (manifest‑weight review and rare reversal standard)
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (U.S. 1963) (prosecution must disclose materially exculpatory evidence)
- State v. Biros, 78 Ohio St.3d 426 (Ohio 1997) (post‑crime conduct as consciousness of guilt)
- State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516 (Ohio 2016) (appellate standard for reviewing felony sentences and scope of review under R.C. 2953.08(G))
- State v. Martin, 20 Ohio App.3d 172 (Ohio Ct. App. 1983) (framework for weighing evidence in manifest‑weight analysis)