State v. Clark, 2017 Ohio 7633

Background

Victim Kimber (Kimberly) Baker was driving with two young children when she encountered Beth Ann Adams and Anthony Clark; Baker testified Clark fired three shots at her truck from the passenger side, striking the fender, hood, and windshield.
Baker identified Clark as the shooter; police observed fresh bullet strikes consistent with Baker’s description. No casings were recovered. Clark denied involvement.
Adams testified she saw no shooting and that Baker initiated the confrontation; defense witness Elaine Huddleston (Clark’s aunt) suggested a similar bullet hole might predate the incident.
Clark was indicted on three counts of felonious assault with firearm specifications, one count of discharging a firearm on/near prohibited premises, and two counts of having weapons while under disability; he was convicted on all counts and sentenced to an aggregate 23 years.
On appeal Clark raised six issues: manifest weight of the evidence, ineffective assistance of counsel, merger of offenses, adequacy of consecutive-sentence findings, denial of impeachment with a prior inconsistent statement, and denial of a continuance to review jail-call recordings. The appellate court affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Clark)	Held
1. Manifest weight of the evidence	Evidence (Baker’s ID, fresh bullet strikes, officer observations) supports convictions	Baker’s testimony inconsistent; defense witnesses contradict shooting	Court: Evidence credible; jury entitled to resolve conflicts — no miscarriage of justice; conviction affirmed
2. Ineffective assistance of counsel	Counsel’s decisions (no objections) were reasonable trial strategy	Counsel erred by not objecting to certain testimony (mail-slot incident, detective’s lay opinion)	Court: No deficient performance; testimony properly admitted under Evid.R.701 and 602; claim fails
3. Merger of offenses under R.C. 2941.25	Separate offenses caused separate harms; prosecution need not merge	Weapons-under-disability should merge with felonious assault if gun possessed solely to shoot victim	Court: No merger — possession and the decision to shoot were separate acts with distinct culpability
4. Consecutive sentences	Trial court made required findings in the judgment entry and (presumptively) on the record	Clark argued the court failed to expressly state statutory course-of-conduct language	Court: Entry and presumption of regularity suffice; Bonnell allows non‑verbatim statutory language so long as analysis discernible; findings supported by record
5. Impeachment with prior inconsistent statement	State did not waive foundation; trial court properly enforced Evid.R.613(B) foundational requirements	Defense sought to impeach Baker via officer’s report without first confronting Baker about the prior statement	Court: Trial court did not abuse discretion — defense failed to lay required foundation; exclusion proper
6. Continuance to review jail-call recordings	State provided impeachment excerpts; remaining calls not used and not shown exculpatory	Defense argued late production prevented review for potential exculpatory material	Court: Denial of continuance not an abuse of discretion; no prejudice shown; recordings under defendant’s control and statements likely hearsay/inadmissible

Key Cases Cited

State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (Ohio 1997) (defines manifest-weight standard)
State v. Montgomery, 148 Ohio St.3d 347 (Ohio 2016) (addresses standards for weighing credibility and manifest weight review)
State v. Martin, 20 Ohio App.3d 172 (Ohio Ct. App. 1983) (articulates standard for manifest-weight reversals)
State v. Antill, 176 Ohio St. 61 (Ohio 1961) (jury as sole judge of credibility and weight of evidence)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-prong ineffective-assistance test)
State v. Ruff, 143 Ohio St.3d 114 (Ohio 2015) (merger and multiple-offense analysis)
State v. Williams, 148 Ohio St.3d 403 (Ohio 2016) (application of R.C. 2941.25 standards)
State v. Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d 209 (Ohio 2014) (consecutive-sentence findings — no verbatim recitation required so long as record supports findings)
State v. DeHass, 10 Ohio St.2d 230 (Ohio 1967) (appellate deference to jury’s reconciliation of testimony)
State v. Unger, 67 Ohio St.2d 65 (Ohio 1981) (standards for continuance and abuse-of-discretion review)