State v. Brown
2021 Ohio 3591
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2021Background
- David L. Brown was indicted for one count of extortion under R.C. 2905.11(A)(2)/(B) based on multiple recorded jail calls he made on July 10, 2020.
- A temporary protection order (TPO) naming Brown and prohibiting contact with Katrina Stewart was issued three days before the calls; a $250,000 bond had been set.
- Brown called Stewart (the homeowner, who testified she was sole owner) and Jessica Wood from jail; the recordings include repeated berating, threats to "take something you love," threats of violence ("beat the pink off her ass," "you will feel my pain"), and a statement to Wood that he would "shoot [Stewart’s] mom and dad in the face."
- The state introduced the jail-call recordings and the certified TPO at trial; the calls were played in full for the jury.
- Stewart invoked the Fifth Amendment and declined to answer questions about the TPO or calls; Brown rested without testifying.
- A jury convicted Brown of extortion; the trial court sentenced him to 24 months (with credit for time served). Brown appealed; the Seventh District affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Brown's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of the evidence to prove extortion (threat element) | Recorded calls show direct and implied threats to commit violence and to harm property/people to obtain bond collateral — supports conviction. | Statements did not amount to threats under R.C. 2905.11(A)(2); evidence insufficient. | Affirmed — recordings contained direct threats and threatening innuendo; evidence was sufficient. |
| Admissibility/playing in full of jail-call recordings (hearsay, relevance, unfair prejudice) | Brown’s statements are admissions by a party-opponent; callers’ remarks are admissible for context under the party-opponent doctrine; full recordings were relevant and not unfairly prejudicial. | Statements by Stewart/Wood were hearsay; non‑threatening portions were irrelevant and unfairly prejudicial. | Affirmed — trial court did not abuse discretion; callers’ remarks necessary context; Brown’s non‑threatening speech was relevant and probative. |
| Admission of the TPO into evidence | TPO was relevant background showing context, motive, and why calls would cause apprehension; not offered to show bad character. | TPO was other‑acts evidence that unfairly prejudiced Brown because he was not charged with violating it. | Affirmed — TPO was admissible for context and state of mind; an objection would likely have failed. |
| Ineffective assistance claim for counsel’s failure to object to TPO and full calls | Even if counsel did not object, such objections lacked reasonable probability of success; no prejudice shown. | Trial counsel’s failures deprived Brown of a fair trial. | Affirmed — Strickland prongs not met; objections would not likely have succeeded, so no ineffective assistance. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Cress, 112 Ohio St.3d 72 (2006) (threat may be direct or by innuendo and includes words or conduct intended to create apprehension)
- State v. Issa, 93 Ohio St.3d 49 (2001) (trial-court evidentiary rulings reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two‑part test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- State v. Williams, 134 Ohio St.3d 521 (2012) (standards for admissibility of other‑acts evidence under Evid.R. 404(B) and balancing under Evid.R. 403)
- State v. Robinson, 162 Ohio St. 486 (1955) (framework for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)