State v. Brown
2021 Ohio 2540
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2021Background:
- Victim L.S. was found dead from a single gunshot wound in his Lorain residence on July 14, 2016; his brother S.F. identified Larry Brown as the shooter. Brown fled Ohio and was arrested in Maryland.
- Brown was indicted on murder, two counts of felonious assault (with firearm specifications), and tampering with evidence (with firearm spec).
- Brown executed written speedy-trial waivers on multiple pretrial form entries; the case experienced multiple continuances and three successive defense counsel withdrawals (one for breakdown in attorney-client relationship; one for attorney medical issues).
- At trial the State presented forensic, cellular, surveillance, and S.F.’s eyewitness and post-shooting statements; the jury convicted Brown on all counts and specifications.
- The trial court sentenced Brown to an aggregate term of 20 years to life. Brown appealed raising six assignments of error (speedy trial, jury instructions, recall of witness, sufficiency, manifest weight, ineffective assistance).
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Brown) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Speedy-trial / motion to dismiss | Brown executed written, unlimited waivers; delays were attributable to continuances and counsel changes; no formal demand was made | Waivers were not knowingly/voluntarily limited to single dates; delay violated statutory and constitutional speedy-trial rights; due process violated by missed pretrials | Waiver on Oct. 7, 2016 was unlimited and effective; Brown did not file a timely written demand; no speedy-trial violation or due-process prejudice shown |
| Recall of State witness (T‑Mobile custodian) | Recall permitted to correct inadvertent transposition of service-code definitions that mischaracterized phone records | Recall improperly bolstered State’s case / credibility | Trial court did not abuse discretion; recall properly corrected an inadvertent mistake and avoided confusion |
| Sufficiency of evidence (murder / felonious assault) | Evidence (eyewitness ID, scene, blood pattern, victim wounds, Brown’s statements and conduct after shooting) established purposeful or knowing conduct | Insufficient proof of purpose/knowledge | Evidence sufficient to allow reasonable jury to find Brown acted purposely or, alternatively, knowingly caused serious physical harm; convictions upheld |
| Manifest weight of the evidence | Witnesses and physical/cell/surveillance evidence corroborated S.F.; investigative choices were reasonable | S.F. was inconsistent/unreliable; no positive tread match; investigative omissions undermine confidence | Weight-of-evidence review finds no manifest miscarriage of justice; credibility determinations for jury to make |
| Jury instructions (lesser included offenses) | Lesser instructions not required because evidence did not reasonably support acquittal on charged offenses and conviction on lesser included offenses | Court should have instructed on reckless/negligent homicide and lesser assaults | No error: certain lesser offenses are not lesser-included for felony-murder; even where lesser-included exists, evidence would not reasonably support acquittal on charged offenses and conviction on lesser offense |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel | Counsel’s performance was not deficient; waivers and continuances were on record; no prejudice shown | Counsel caused delay/unpreparedness and prejudice from faded memories and counsel withdrawals | Strickland not satisfied: no deficiency shown in record and no reasonable probability of a different outcome |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. King, 70 Ohio St.3d 158 (1994) (written waiver of statutory speedy-trial right can waive constitutional speedy-trial right)
- State v. O'Brien, 34 Ohio St.3d 7 (1987) (written waiver and requirement to file formal written objection/demand to preserve right)
- State v. Owens, 162 Ohio St.3d 596 (2020) (felony-murder imposes no separate mens rea for victim’s death beyond underlying felony)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (sufficiency standard: view evidence in light most favorable to prosecution)
- Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (1997) (distinguishing sufficiency and manifest-weight review)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Snyder v. Massachusetts, 291 U.S. 97 (1934) (defendant’s presence required only as necessary to ensure a fair hearing)
- State v. Otten, 33 Ohio App.3d 339 (1986) (manifest-weight review framework)