State v. Brown
103 N.E.3d 32
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- In May 2014 appellant Marque Brown (age 20) assaulted his girlfriend Taisha Ramirez (age 17, third trimester pregnant); she later died and the fetus did not survive. Autopsy found subdural hematoma and diffuse cerebral edema from blunt head trauma.
- Family members and police observed Taisha with heavy nose/mouth bleeding and facial injuries shortly after the altercation; appellant admitted in a recorded interview that he punched her.
- Appellant was indicted on counts including murder, two counts of involuntary manslaughter (one as to the unborn child), and felonious assault; after a jury trial he was convicted of two counts of involuntary manslaughter and one count of felonious assault (later merged for sentencing).
- The trial court sentenced Brown to consecutive 11-year terms (22 years total). Defense raised claims including exclusion of expert testimony on medical negligence as an intervening cause, evidentiary errors, sufficiency/weight challenges, and sentencing errors.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed convictions but held the trial court failed to make the required R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings for consecutive sentences on the record and in the judgment entry; remanded for resentencing (or nunc pro tunc entry).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Exclusion of defense expert re: medical negligence as an independent intervening cause | State: evidence of mere medical misdiagnosis/ordinary negligence cannot break causation; only gross/willful maltreatment does. | Brown: Dr. Becker would show timely CT/admission likely would have saved Taisha and fetus, breaking causal chain. | Court: Exclusion proper—Dr. Becker’s reports only suggested ordinary negligence, not gross negligence; insufficient to support instruction or evidence of independent intervening cause. |
| Admissibility of victim-impact-type testimony (schooling, pregnancy, personality) | State: testimony was factual, limited to witnesses’ observations and relevant to context. | Brown: such evidence was prejudicial and inflammatory under State v. White. | Court: No abuse of discretion; testimony did not violate White and was properly limited. |
| Detective’s testimony about defendant’s demeanor/credibility during interview | State: testimony described officer’s observations, not an opinion on veracity. | Brown: officer improperly vouched about defendant’s truthfulness, undermining jury’s role. | Court: Testimony was observational and any error harmless given other substantial evidence (including appellant’s admission). |
| Consecutive sentence findings under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) | State: consecutive terms were necessary to protect public and proportionate given two victims and defendant’s record. | Brown: trial court failed to make the statutory findings on the record and in the entry as required by Bonnell. | Court: Remanded—trial court did not adequately state which statutory subfactor (a),(b), or (c) supported consecutive terms in the record/entry; required findings missing. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Tomlin, 63 Ohio St.3d 724 (expert admissibility standard for aiding factfinder)
- State v. Johnson, 56 Ohio St.2d 35 (criminal responsibility despite subsequent medical care; gross negligence exception)
- State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (sufficiency of the evidence standard)
- State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (manifest-weight standard)
- State v. Ruff, 143 Ohio St.3d 114 (allied-offense / dissimilar-import analysis)
- State v. Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d 209 (requirement to make and incorporate consecutive-sentence findings)