State v. Cowan
2012 Ohio 5723
Ohio Ct. App.2012Background
- Cowan was convicted by jury of felonious assault, discharge of a firearm near a prohibited premises, having weapons while under disability, and improperly handling firearms in a motor vehicle; several related counts were dismissed; he was sentenced to 18 years.
- Police conducted a suppression hearing; motion denied.
- Guns were found near a tree outside Cowan’s property; he exited with firearms during a SWAT operation.
- Key witnesses testified to Cowan pointing a gun and firing at and near others; one neighbor corroborated gunfire.
- Court remanded for HB 86 consecutive-sentence findings; pro se assignments were stricken for excess length.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Suppression of evidence and statements | State contends entry was valid under emergency/search incident. | Cowan argues no warrantable exception existed; statements should be suppressed. | Suppression denial affirmed; some entries were harmless; statements admitted. |
| Sufficiency of the evidence | State asserts witnesses and gun operability support convictions. | Cowan asserts insufficient evidence and weight errors. | Convictions supported by sufficient evidence; not against weight of the evidence. |
| Allied offenses and merger | State contends convictions are cohesive with separate animus. | Cowan argues allied offenses should merge. | No merger; separate animus found; convictions not allied. |
| Consecutive-sentence findings under HB 86 | State argues HB 86 findings are required for consecutive terms. | Cowan contends improper or absent HB 86 findings. | HB 86 findings insufficient; remand for proper consecutive-sentence findings. |
| Pro se assignments and brief length | N/A | Cowan’s pro se filings exceeded limits and were stricken. | Pro se assignments stricken; convictions/sentencing affirmed in part. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Burnside, 100 Ohio St.3d 152 (Ohio 2003) (defers to trial-court findings in suppression; mixed questions of fact and law)
- State v. Carter, ? (1995) (Ohio 1995) (standard for review of suppression rulings)
- State v. Tenace, 109 Ohio St.3d 255 (Ohio 2006) (sufficiency review standard (Jackson v. Virginia))
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1979) (sufficiency of the evidence standard)
- State v. Johnson, 128 Ohio St.3d 153 (Ohio 2010) (two-part test for allied offenses under 2941.25)
- Maumee v. Geiger, 45 Ohio St.2d 242 (Ohio 1978) (general purpose of merging allied offenses under 2941.25)
- State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (Ohio 1997) (ultimate test for weight of the evidence)
- State v. Murphy, 49 Ohio St.3d 206 (Ohio 1990) (operability can be proven by lay witnesses)