State v. Carpenter, 2013 Ohio 1385

Two armed individuals robbed a Thornton gas station in Miami Township at about 3:00 a.m. on November 6, 2009; one was tall, African-American and armed, the other shorter and 'Mexican-looking.'
Store clerk Rita Hayes, and witnesses Michael Young and Greg Mellett, observed a violent robbery with the gunman demanding cash and striking Hayes; money was taken from two registers before the robbers fled.
Darrell Mays, Jr. and Angela Hyden were associated with the group planning the robbery; after initial plans, the group proceeded to the gas station with a gun and bandanas.
Rider testified for the state, identifying Carpenter as the tall armed robber; the defense did not present witnesses. The state partly relied on Rider’s testimony to corroborate eyewitness accounts.
Detective Bradford testified about appellant’s nervous, standoffish demeanor during interviews and suggested deception; the detective’s testimony was later found to be improper in part under Boston and Davis, but harmless.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of detective's opinion on truthfulness	Carpenter argues Bradford's opinions violated Boston and Crawford.	Carpenter contends the detective's body-language testimony was improper expert/lay opinion.	Admissibility was mixed; some testimony was harmless despite error.
Body-language testimony admissibility and expert status	Bradford’s body-language observations were improperly admitted as expert opinion.	No proper foundation as an expert in body language; testimony should be restricted to lay observations.	The court allowed some lay observations; held harmless error for other opinions.
Confrontation rights impact	Detective’s statements about truthfulness violated Crawford when not cross-examined in real time.	Crawford does not apply to the detective’s post hoc observations of demeanor since Carpenter is the accused.	Crawford did not bar the testimony; any Crawford issue found harmless.
Ineffective assistance of counsel	Counsel failed to argue critical issues or adequately cross-examine about body-language testimony.	Counsel’s performance was deficient and prejudicial.	Not established; performance was not prejudicial under Strickland.
Sufficiency/weight of the evidence	Evidence supported aggravated robbery conviction.	Challenges based on detective testimony and its impact on verdict.	Evidence, viewed as a whole, supported the conviction; verdict not against weight or sufficiency.

State v. Boston, 46 Ohio St.3d 108 (1989) (expert opinion on veracity improper; jurors assess credibility)
State v. Davis, 116 Ohio St.3d 404 (2008) (police officer's opinion on untruthfulness inadmissible; confrontation concerns)
Kalish, 120 Ohio St.3d 23 (2008) (Kalish framework for reviewing felony sentences)
State v. Richcreek, 196 Ohio App.3d 505 (2011) (harmless error review of Boston-type violations)
Elyria v. Tress, 73 Ohio App.3d 5 (1991) (substance-over-form approach in addressing appellate issues)