State v. Crosby, 2016 Ohio 571

Background

Deondre Crosby was indicted for two counts of aggravated murder, aggravated robbery, and aggravated burglary arising from a burglary/robbery in which two victims were shot and killed; co-defendants were Elgin Mitchell and James Whatley.
At trial, the jury convicted Crosby of aggravated murder, complicity to commit aggravated murder, aggravated robbery, and aggravated burglary, including firearm specifications; Crosby was sentenced to life with parole possible after 30 years.
Crosby appealed raising three assignments of error: (1) venire lacked a fair cross-section (no African‑Americans), (2) trial court abused discretion by denying Crim.R. 16 sanctions for the State’s alleged failure to produce an expert report, and (3) erroneous giving of a complicity jury instruction.
On the fair-cross-section claim, defense counsel asserted the array lacked African‑American jurors; the court found no proof of disproportionate representation given Guernsey County’s ~1.5% African‑American population and one person of color was present.
On the discovery dispute, the State had disclosed the expert’s identity, CV, and a PowerPoint summary; defense sought a detailed written report under Crim.R.16(K). The court held a Daubert-style hearing where both experts testified, excluded portions of the report as needed, and allowed testimony in part.
On complicity, the State had sought a complicity instruction; the court gave a limited complicity instruction, finding the theory fit the facts (three participants entered and participated in the robbery leading to the shootings).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Fair cross‑section of jurors	No error; venire drawn from electorate and not shown to systematically exclude any group	Venire lacked African‑Americans; array violated Fulton/Duren three‑prong test	No violation; Crosby failed to show underrepresentation or systematic exclusion given county demographics
Crim.R.16(K) expert report / discovery sanctions	State provided adequate report (PowerPoint, CV, conclusion); defense had notice; trial court properly managed via hearing	PowerPoint was not a full written report; lack of detailed analysis prejudiced defense and warranted exclusion	No abuse of discretion; court held Daubert hearing, permitted testimony in part and denied sanctions
Admissibility / reliability of cellular analysis expert	Expert’s PowerPoint and testimony sufficiently summarized methods and conclusions; subject to cross‑examination	Expert lacked a full written analysis; challenged scientific reliability	Trial court properly evaluated reliability, excluded portions as necessary, allowed testimony in part
Complicity instruction	Instruction appropriate; State gave notice and facts supported a complicity theory (three entered and participated)	Instruction improper because State’s theory was that Crosby was principal shooter, insufficient evidence of complicity	No abuse of discretion; limited complicity instruction was appropriate and confined by court order

Key Cases Cited

State v. Fulton, 57 Ohio St.3d 120 (Ohio 1991) (sets three‑prong fair‑cross‑section test adopting Duren).
Duren v. Missouri, 439 U.S. 357 (U.S. 1979) (three‑prong test for petit jury cross‑section claims).
State v. McNeill, 83 Ohio St.3d 438 (Ohio 1998) (requiring evidence to show underrepresentation relative to community).
State v. Yarbrough, 95 Ohio St.3d 227 (Ohio 2002) (addressing juror list sources and underrepresentation claims).
State v. Darmond, 135 Ohio St.3d 343 (Ohio 2013) (abuse‑of‑discretion standard for discovery rulings in criminal cases).
State v. Adams, 62 Ohio St.2d 151 (Ohio 1980) (standards for abuse of discretion).
State v. Coleman, 37 Ohio St.3d 286 (Ohio 1988) (instructions reviewed as a whole).
State v. Martens, 90 Ohio App.3d 338 (Ohio App. 1993) (trial court discretion on jury instructions).
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (U.S. 1993) (framework for admissibility of expert scientific testimony).