State v. Cunningham
2012 Ohio 2794
Ohio Ct. App.2012Background
- Cunningham, arrested Oct 4, 2008, for the murders of Jessica Serna and Heidi Shook; indictment of 11 counts issued Oct 15, 2008.
- Convicted at trial on ten counts; sentenced to life in prison without parole.
- Motion to suppress evidence from a cell phone seized while awaiting questioning denied; warrants later obtained for contents.
- Police seized a second cell phone later; contents not accessed until warrants issued.
- Voicemails and a 911 tape were admitted at trial; Batson and juror-removal challenges raised; defense also raised ineffective-assistance arguments and appellate review of sufficiency/weight.
- Court affirms conviction and sentence after addressing suppression, juror-discrimination, evidentiary, and weight/sufficiency challenges.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the first cell phone seizure valid without a warrant? | Cunningham | Cunningham | Seizure upheld; warrantless seizure allowed to preserve data prior to warrants. |
| Was the prosecution’s use of a peremptory strike against the last African-American juror improper? | Cunningham | Cunningham | No Batson violation; race-neutral justification found; no intentional discrimination proven. |
| Did the trial court properly remove Juror Number 3 during deliberations? | Cunningham | Cunningham | No abuse of discretion; juror deemed unable to perform duties; alternate seated. |
| Were the voicemails and 911 tape admissible and properly handled? | Cunningham | Cunningham | Admissible under Evid.R. 404(B) and 403; replayed evidence not reversible error. |
| Was the evidence legally sufficient and was the verdict against the weight of the evidence? | State | Cunningham | Evidence sufficient and not against the manifest weight; no cumulative-error reversal. |
Key Cases Cited
- Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (U.S. 1986) (prohibits race-based peremptory strikes)
- State v. Smith, 124 Ohio St.3d 163 (Ohio 2009) (cell-phone data must be warrant-warranted to access contents; seizure allowed to preserve data)
- Segura v. United States, 468 U.S. 796 (U.S. 1984) (seizures can be allowed before warrant; difference between seizure and search)
- State v. Were, 118 Ohio St.3d 448 (Ohio 2008) (questions of discriminatory intent under Batson; standard of review)
- State v. Kinley, 72 Ohio St.3d 491 (Ohio 1995) (relevance of prior acts to prove motive/intent under Evid.R. 404(B))