State v. Crawford, 2020 Ohio 2939

August 19, 2018: altercation outside 3436 Storer Ave. after several people had been drinking; Gary Dickens (victim) was shot and later died from two 9mm gunshot wounds.
Jeremy Crawford arrived with an unidentified companion, argued with Larissa, brandished a handgun, and multiple witnesses heard/felt gunshots; some witnesses saw Crawford fire and others saw the companion shoot.
Crime-scene ballistics recovered six 9mm casings from two different firearms; forensic evidence indicated one shooter fired four rounds and a second fired two; wound analysis placed the shooter about four feet from Dickens.
Crawford testified he fired warning shots to deescalate while his companion (“Prince”) shot Dickens and fled; Cassandra and other witnesses provided varying accounts and initial inconsistent statements.
Jury verdict: acquitted of murder; convicted of discharge of a firearm on/near prohibited premises, involuntary manslaughter (predicate felony: having weapons while under disability), and having weapons while under disability; aggregate sentence ultimately increased to 13 years after a brief recess.
Appeal issues: (1) sufficiency of evidence — whether having-weapons-while-under-disability can be the predicate proximate cause for involuntary manslaughter; (2) whether the court abused discretion or procedure by increasing sentence after recess without new evidence.

Issue	State's Argument	Crawford's Argument	Held
Whether having weapons while under disability can be the proximate cause for involuntary manslaughter (sufficiency of evidence)	The death was proximately caused by Crawford having/using a firearm while under disability; substantial evidence showed he acquired, had, carried, and used a gun and escalated the confrontation.	A weapons-possession offense (having weapons while under disability) is merely possession and cannot, as a matter of law, be the proximate cause of death; therefore involuntary manslaughter conviction is unsupported.	The court upheld sufficiency: prior Ohio precedents allow possession-based statutes to be the proximate cause; evidence supported that Crawford had and used a firearm and that death was the proximate result.
Whether the trial court abused discretion by briefly recessing then increasing Crawford’s sentence without new information	The court complied with sentencing statutes, considered required factors (lack of remorse, failure to cooperate), and may modify an oral sentence prior to journalization.	The resentencing increased punishment without new facts or stated legal basis and thus was an abuse of discretion.	The court found no abuse: trial court articulated sentencing reasons and acted within its authority to modify an unjournalized oral sentence.

State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 386, 678 N.E.2d 541 (establishes sufficiency review standard)
State v. Sabatine, 64 Ohio App.3d 556, 582 N.E.2d 34 (holding possession in a liquor premise can be proximate cause for involuntary manslaughter)
State v. Losey, 23 Ohio App.3d 93, 491 N.E.2d 379 (discusses proximate result in criminal causation)
State v. Chambers, 53 Ohio App.2d 266, 373 N.E.2d 393 (addresses foreseeability and directness in proximate cause analysis)
State v. Gardner, 118 Ohio St.3d 420, 889 N.E.2d 995 (unanimity in alternative means cases requires substantial evidence for each means)
State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516, 59 N.E.3d 1231 (standard for appellate review of felony sentences)