State v. Bryant
2013 Ohio 4446
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- On October 11, 2011, Rickie Sivert arranged a heroin purchase from Edward Bryant (aka “Black Rob”); instead Sivert and a friend stole $150 of heroin from Bryant and used it.
- Bryant recruited his cousin Joseph Barchetti and others to go to Sivert’s apartment; Barchetti, his girlfriend Chloe Chambers, Bryant, and co-defendant Avery Brock went to the residence.
- Barchetti and Chambers were identified outside the house; two males forced entry, damaged the home, and fled as police arrived; Sivert, his girlfriend, and their infant hid and called 911.
- Barchetti and Chambers cooperated with police, identified Bryant at a photo procedure (Barchetti saw only one photo), and testified at trial; Barchetti noted a tattoo on Bryant.
- Bryant was indicted for aggravated burglary with a firearm specification, weapons under disability, and vandalism; post-trial the firearm spec and weapons charge were dismissed, aggravated burglary reduced to burglary, and vandalism reduced to criminal damaging.
- A jury convicted Bryant of burglary (second-degree) and criminal damaging (misdemeanor); Brock was acquitted; Bryant was sentenced to six years and timely appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether convictions are against the manifest weight of the evidence | State: testimony (Barchetti, Chambers, Wooten) and physical damage support convictions | Bryant: inconsistent verdicts (codefendant acquitted) and insufficient identity/participation proof | Affirmed — weight review finds evidence supports convictions; inconsistent verdicts across codefendants permissible when issues differ |
| Whether the trial court erred denying motion to suppress out-of-court photo ID | State: despite noncompliance with R.C. 2933.83, photo ID was reliable under totality of circumstances | Bryant: single-photo procedure was impermissibly suggestive and risked misidentification | Affirmed — one-photo showing not per se fatal; totality (including relationship of witness to defendant) did not create substantial likelihood of misidentification |
Key Cases Cited
- Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293 (1967) (photographic and lineup identifications reviewed under totality of circumstances for suggestiveness and reliability)
- Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188 (1972) (factors for assessing reliability of identification: opportunity to view, attention, prior description accuracy, certainty, and time elapsed)
- State v. Battee, 72 Ohio App.3d 660 (1991) (single-photo displays are discouraged but may still be reliable)
- State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (1997) (appellate manifest-weight review functions as the "thirteenth juror")
- State v. Hurt, [citation=""] (cited for principle that inconsistent verdicts across codefendants are not always required to be consistent) (Note: Hurt was cited in opinion but lacks an official reporter citation in the opinion record)