State v. Crosby, 2015 Ohio 5176

Donzelle Crosby was indicted for aggravated murder, murder, aggravated robbery, aggravated burglary, felonious assault, and tampering with evidence arising from a March 1, 2011 shooting in Michelle Neal's Lorain home in which Jason Smith was killed.
Witnesses (Neal and co-defendant Jeremy Brown among others) testified that Crosby demanded property and then shot Smith; Brown saw the shooting and Neal identified Crosby by nickname (“Dollar”).
The jury convicted Crosby on the charged offenses and associated firearm specifications; the trial court merged counts and sentenced him to life with parole eligibility after 30 years. A death-penalty specification was dismissed pretrial after IQ testing in the 50s.
Crosby appealed, raising four assignments of error: sufficiency of the evidence, manifest weight, ineffective assistance of counsel, and failure to order a new competency hearing after a later-confirmed IQ of 52.
The appellate court reviewed testimonial inconsistencies, alleged improper bolstering/hearsay, Bruton issues, and whether the IQ information required sua sponte reconsideration of competency; it affirmed the convictions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Crosby)	Held
Sufficiency of the evidence	Evidence, if believed, supports convictions on aggravated murder, robbery, burglary, felonious assault	Witness contradictions made proof insufficient	Affirmed: testimony of Neal and Brown, viewed favorably to State, was sufficient (Jenks standard)
Manifest weight	Jury reasonably credited State witnesses despite minor inconsistencies	Conflicting witness accounts, intoxication/drug use, and incentives render verdict against manifest weight	Affirmed: not extraordinary case; jury did not lose its way (Otten standard)
Ineffective assistance of counsel	Trial counsel’s choices were reasonable trial strategy; no clear deficient performance causing prejudice	Counsel failed to object to alleged bolstering, hearsay, Bruton issues, and other testimony	Affirmed: counsel not ineffective under Strickland; challenged testimony did not amount to improper bolstering/hearsay or Bruton violation
Competency / sua sponte hearing	Court previously held Crosby competent after evaluation; later IQ score (52) did not create bona fide doubt requiring new hearing	New lower IQ score required court to order another competency hearing sua sponte	Affirmed: corrected IQ alone was not sufficient indicia of incompetence to mandate another hearing (Pate/Berry standards)

State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (discussing standard of review for legal issues in criminal cases)
State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (standard for sufficiency review: evidence viewed in light most favorable to prosecution)
State v. Otten, 33 Ohio App.3d 339 (standard for manifest-weight review and reversal only in extraordinary cases)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective-assistance two-prong test)
State v. Bradley, 42 Ohio St.3d 136 (defining deficient performance under Strickland in Ohio)
Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 (co-defendant confession and confrontation-clause rule)
State v. Boston, 46 Ohio St.3d 108 (expert witness may not testify to witness veracity)
State v. Dever, 64 Ohio St.3d 401 (modification context for Boston)
State v. Berry, 72 Ohio St.3d 354 (what constitutes sufficient indicia of incompetence to require hearing)
Pate v. Robinson, 383 U.S. 375 (judge must hold hearing sua sponte if bona fide doubt as to competence)