State v. Conyer, 2017 Ohio 7506

On July 21, 2014, Maurice Conyer allegedly fired 4–5 shots from a red Chevy Impala (license plate REECE01) at a car occupied by Sharron Winphrie and Shayla Blair after a verbal altercation at 118 Hilton Avenue.
Winphrie and Blair reported the shooting to police; police linked the plate to Conyer's vehicle.
An anonymous 911 caller reported a recent drive‑by shooting by a red Impala and gave the same plate number; the recording was disclosed to defense the day before trial.
Defense moved to exclude the 911 recording or obtain a continuance to investigate the anonymous caller; the court ruled the tape admissible, offered a continuance, but Conyer refused the continuance and chose to proceed to trial.
A jury convicted Conyer of two counts of felonious assault with firearm specifications; the court imposed consecutive sentences for the two assaults plus a mandatory consecutive firearm term.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of anonymous 911 call under Confrontation Clause	911 call was non‑testimonial because it was made amid an ongoing public threat (drive‑by shooting)	Call was testimonial (past tense, calm caller, said police not needed) and inadmissible without cross‑examination	Call was non‑testimonial under Davis/Bryant analysis; alternatively any error was harmless because victims gave same account
Denial of defense motion to continue to investigate 911 call	Trial court properly considered defendant's express refusal of continuance and denied relief; no abuse of discretion	Counsel needed time to investigate; client’s refusal should not bar continuance because counsel controls trial strategy	No abuse of discretion; defendant personally opposed continuance and invited the decision, so error doctrine and Unger balancing foreclose relief
Failure to merge two felonious‑assault convictions for sentencing	Multiple victims suffered separate harms; separate animus supports multiple convictions	Assaults arose from a single transaction and should merge as allied offenses	Offenses do not merge: separate victims, separate harms and animus; consecutive sentences permissible

Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (Confrontation Clause bars admission of testimonial statements absent prior cross‑examination)
Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 (911 calls made to address ongoing emergencies are generally non‑testimonial)
Michigan v. Bryant, 562 U.S. 344 (contextual, objective analysis of "ongoing emergency" and primary purpose inquiry)
State v. Ruff, 143 Ohio St.3d 114 (framework for allied‑offense analysis: conduct, animus, and import)
State v. McBreen, 54 Ohio St.2d 315 (counsel may waive certain speedy‑trial rights for trial preparation, with limits)
State v. Williams, 134 Ohio St.3d 482 (standard of review for allied‑offense merger issues)