State v. Campbell
2014 Ohio 493
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- On Sept. 14, 2011, shots were fired at the Olive Twist bar; two victims (Williams and Malone) were wounded. Surveillance video, bar security, and eyewitnesses tied a male with a bulletproof vest to the altercations and to the footage of the shooter.
- Security witnesses (Sims, Jackson) identified a male in a plaid shirt on the video as the shooter; Jackson later identified Campbell in court as the individual on the tape. Malone and Hobbs identified Campbell from photo arrays and in court as the person seen in the SUV after the shooting.
- Police recovered two .40 casings at the scene; after a Dec. 2, 2011, vehicle chase and crash, officers recovered two guns from the flipped vehicle; ballistics matched one recovered gun to the casings from the bar.
- Campbell was indicted on multiple counts including attempted murder, felonious assault, firearm specifications, carrying a concealed weapon, having weapons while under a disability, and improperly handling firearms in a motor vehicle. A Crim.R. 29 motion was granted on one count; the jury convicted on the remainder and the court imposed a total 24-year sentence (including consecutive firearm-specification terms).
- On appeal Campbell challenged (inter alia) photo-array identifications, sufficiency and weight of the evidence, certain evidentiary rulings, the state’s use of portions of surveillance video, a jury instruction on constructive possession, and jail-time credit.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Campbell's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pretrial photo-array identifications admissible? | Arrays were not unduly suggestive; witnesses reliably identified Campbell | Arrays were unduly suggestive (bright/orange shirt, unique tattoo); noncompliance with R.C. 2933.83(B) | Not unduly suggestive; identification admissible; statutory-compliance claim waived for appeal |
| Sufficiency of evidence to identify shooter and support convictions | Video IDs, eyewitness testimony, photo-array IDs, ballistics linking gun recovered after chase supported convictions | No one saw Campbell fire; victims didn’t see shooter; no direct forensic link at scene | Evidence sufficient to support identity, attempted murder, felonious assault, and firearm specifications |
| Manifest weight — verdict against manifest weight? | Combined testimony, video, IDs, and ballistics supported jury credibility determinations | Evidence poor and unreliable; lack of direct forensic proof; no one saw Campbell with gun | Not an exceptional case; convictions not against manifest weight |
| Cross-examination about police report statement (name “Roderick”) | Statement was hearsay in report; inadmissible under exceptions; cross-exam not permitted | Defense sought to probe source under business-record/public-record exceptions | Trial court did not abuse discretion; report statement was hearsay and inadmissible; Evid.R. 803(6)/(8) issues waived or unsupported |
| Use of portions of surveillance video at trial | Portions corresponded to witnesses’ identifications; entire tape later played; no prejudice | Playing only portions was unduly suggestive and prejudicial | Court did not abuse discretion; later playing full tape waived further objection |
| Jury instruction on constructive possession (Count 10) | Constructive-possession instruction was appropriate for firearm specs; court did not instruct on constructive possession for Count 10 | Insufficient evidence for constructive possession as to Count 10 | Court did not instruct constructive possession for Count 10; instruction on specs harmless if error |
| Jail-time credit omitted from written judgment | Trial court ordered 363 days credit at sentencing | Credit did not appear in journal entry | Remanded for nunc pro tunc entry to reflect 363 days credit |
Key Cases Cited
- Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188 (1972) (two-step test for admissibility of identifications arising from suggestive procedures)
- State v. Burnside, 100 Ohio St.3d 152 (2003) (standard of review for mixed questions of law and fact on suppression motions)
- State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (1991) (sufficiency standard: view evidence in light most favorable to prosecution)
- State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (1997) (manifest-weight standard and exceptional-case requirement for reversal)
- State v. Heinish, 50 Ohio St.3d 231 (1990) (trial court discretion in evidentiary rulings)