State v. Carter
2017 Ohio 1233
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Defendant Markelus Q. Carter was convicted by a jury of aggravated murder with a firearm specification and having weapons while under disability for the 2009 shooting death of Kenneth Warrington; sentence: life without parole + firearm spec and concurrent term. Trial spanned Sept. 8–22, 2015; State presented 30 witnesses and 150+ exhibits.
- Key circumstantial evidence: motive (victim’s relationship with defendant’s ex), surveillance/photographs showing victim’s truck near victim’s partner’s home, Google/auditor searches by Carter, camouflage clothing and gloves from Carter’s home testing positive for gunshot residue (GSR), Winchester 9mm ammunition at Carter’s residence consistent with bullets recovered, and jailhouse witnesses reporting Carter’s admissions and attempts to procure an alibi.
- The murder weapon was never recovered; ballistics experts agreed the fired bullets were 9mm with six lands/grooves and could match many candidate firearms (a 131-item candidate list existed). Experts excluded the specific firearms seized from Carter’s house.
- Mid-trial events: (1) an altercation in a courthouse holding cell where Carter assaulted a prosecution witness (Upham) — recorded on surveillance video and used at trial; (2) a dispute over disclosure of a ballistic "candidate list" and use of a demonstrative photo of a Mac-10–style gun prompted a defense motion for mistrial.
- Carter raised, on appeal, challenges to sufficiency/manifest weight, denial of mistrial and admissibility of the holding-cell incident, alleged discovery/Brady violations (ballistics/Mac-10), prosecutorial misconduct in closing, and ineffective assistance of counsel.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Carter's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency / manifest weight of evidence | State: ample circumstantial evidence (motive, planning, GSR, ammunition, admissions, casing type) supports conviction | Carter: evidence was insufficient and jury lost its way; Sonya (victim’s partner) more likely suspect | Court: conviction supported; sufficiency and manifest weight claims denied |
| Mistrial re: holding-cell assault & admissibility of incident | State: assault was defendant’s intentional act showing consciousness of guilt; admissible as admission by conduct | Carter: placement in same cell was state-created accident; admission was unfairly prejudicial and improper other-acts evidence | Court: no abuse of discretion denying mistrial; holding-cell conduct admissible as consciousness of guilt and not substantially outweighed by prejudice |
| Discovery (Crim.R. 16) & ballistics / Mac-10 materiality | State: reports disclosed core conclusions; candidate list was ancillary notes and defense had notice via reports and inmate statements; demonstrative photo listed on exhibit list | Carter: State failed to disclose candidate list and Mac-10 demonstrative, prejudicing defense and undermining cross-examination (mistrial warranted) | Court: no willful discovery violation; no mistrial; allowed extra preparation time and limited remedial measures |
| Prosecutorial misconduct in closing & cumulative error | State: closing arguments were fair inferences from testimony; court sustained objections and instructed jury on burden and reasonable doubt | Carter: prosecutor misstated evidence, shifted burden, and cumulative errors require reversal | Court: objections were sustained or curative instructions given; no reversible prosecutorial misconduct; cumulative-error claim denied |
| Ineffective assistance (failure to investigate/retain ballistic expert) | State: defense had opportunity, cross-examined expert effectively, and never sought continuance or called a contradicted expert | Carter: counsel failed to pursue or present an expert who might exclude Mac-10 and challenge ballistics | Court: defendant failed to show deficient performance or prejudice; claim denied |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (standard for manifest-weight review)
- State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (sufficiency-of-evidence standard)
- State v. Jackson, 57 Ohio St.3d 29 (circumstantial evidence may be more persuasive than direct evidence)
- State v. Richey, 64 Ohio St.3d 353 (admission by conduct / consciousness of guilt principles)
- State v. Franklin, 62 Ohio St.3d 118 (mistrial standard)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (abuse of discretion standard)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective-assistance two-prong test)