State v. Buck
100 N.E.3d 118
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Andre Buck was indicted with others for the February 6–7, 2014 kidnapping of Tyrell George; Buck was tried with Anthony Barrow, convicted of kidnapping, acquitted of gun specifications and weapon-under-disability, and sentenced to 11 years.
- Police monitored repeated ransom calls to the victim’s brother (Timothy Kellam) demanding $100,000; calls indicated the victim had been shot and threatened with death. Officers tracked one ransom number to (513) 498-2051 and to Buck’s address; Buck was arrested and a phone later identified as that number was recovered from his pocket.
- Police entered Buck’s apartment and seized his person, his phone, and then searched the phone without a warrant, invoking exigent/emergency-aid circumstances because the victim’s life was believed to be in danger. Detective Hilbert also testified he recognized Buck’s voice on ransom calls.
- Trial evidence included phone records linking Buck to the ransom number and to co-defendants, corroborating physical evidence from the victim (duct tape, bleach, abrasions), statements by cooperating codefendant Lonnie Rucker, and recorded jail calls by Buck acknowledging the phone’s inculpatory value.
- Buck moved to suppress the warrantless entries and phone search; the trial court denied suppression. On appeal Buck raised six assignments: suppression standard, prosecutorial misconduct (discovery/false testimony), trial fairness/due process (judge conduct, conflict, unrecorded sidebars), admission of tattoo photos, sentencing/jail-credit, and weight/sufficiency of evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Warrantless entry/search of home and person | Exigent/emergency-aid justified entry because victim believed shot and life threatened; phone might locate him | Exigent-circumstances exception requires probable cause and was not satisfied | Court: emergency-aid exception applied; warrantless entry/search of apartment and person was reasonable under totality of circumstances |
| Warrantless search of cell-phone data | Exigent circumstances (victim in danger; active ransom negotiation) permitted warrantless data download | Riley requires warrant absent exigency; no ongoing exigency after arrest | Court: exigency persisted (second kidnapper still negotiating); warrantless phone search justified |
| Sufficiency/weight of evidence identifying Buck as participant | Phone tied to ransom number (IMEI match, pings), phone on Buck, voice ID by detective, jail calls showed consciousness of guilt | No direct proof Buck used ransom number; voice ID not expert or sufficiently familiar | Court: evidence sufficient and not against manifest weight; conviction affirmed |
| Prosecutorial misconduct / discovery violation (undisclosed second interview of victim) | State provided adequate discovery; any omission not willful and remedy (recess, expanded cross) cured prejudice | Failure to disclose second George interview and use of allegedly false testimony deprived due process | Court: no willful nondisclosure shown; trial court’s remedy appropriate; no prosecutorial misconduct established |
| Trial fairness: judge bias, conflict of interest, unrecorded sidebars, mistrial request | Court’s temper did not create disqualifying bias; defendant waived presence for in-chambers matter; no actual conflict shown from prior successive representation; summaries of sidebars accepted when counsel had opportunity to object | Judge lost impartiality; prior counsel conflict required inquiry; lack of recording and denied mistrial prejudiced defendant | Court: no structural bias; no prejudice shown from absence/in-chambers matter; no actual conflict or prejudice from successive-representation claim; trial court erred in not recording sidebars but defendant failed to show prejudice |
| Admission of tattoo photographs | Photos helped ID and rebut defense; probative value not outweighed by prejudice | Tattoos irrelevant and risked unfair inference of violent character | Court: trial court abused discretion admitting tattoos, but error harmless given overwhelming other evidence |
| Sentencing / jail-time credit calculation | State concedes trial-court error in credit calculation; defendant entitled to total days in custody | Trial court omitted days held on parole hold tied to kidnapping | Court: remanded to correct sentencing entry to include 761 days jail-credit; otherwise sentence affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Brigham City v. Stuart, 547 U.S. 398 (U.S. 2006) (exigent/emergency-aid exception permits warrantless entry when officers reasonably believe persons inside need immediate aid)
- Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385 (U.S. 1978) (general limits on warrantless searches; exigent circumstances recognized)
- Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373 (U.S. 2014) (cell-phone data generally requires a warrant, but exigent-circumstances exception remains)
- State v. Dunn, 131 Ohio St.3d 325 (Ohio 2012) (Ohio recognition of emergency-aid standard and that officers need not have ironclad proof of life-threatening injury)
- State v. Smith, 124 Ohio St.3d 163 (Ohio 2009) (cell-phone searches and Riley discussion in Ohio context)
- State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (Ohio 1991) (standard for sufficiency of the evidence)
- State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (Ohio 1997) (standard for manifest-weight review)