State v. E.T.
2019 Ohio 1204
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- Juvenile (E.T., Jr.) was charged in juvenile court with murder and a firearm specification for a January 2015 shooting at a pool hall that killed Jaurice Blakely and injured others.
- The state moved to transfer (discretionary bindover) the juvenile to adult common pleas court; a probable-cause hearing was held in juvenile court.
- The bindover evidence relied principally on eyewitness testimony from Shakil Gardner who saw a person with a gun inside the hall and later identified appellant in a photo array and in court.
- Defense attacked the reliability of the photo-array and identification (Gardner said he was only ~50% sure from the photo array; array procedures did not strictly follow R.C. 2933.83).
- Juvenile court found probable cause to transfer; case later prosecuted in common pleas court, where appellant pleaded guilty to voluntary manslaughter and felonious assault with firearm specifications and was sentenced to 20 years.
- Appellant appealed, arguing (1) juvenile court erred in finding probable cause because identification was unreliable, (2) ineffective assistance of counsel at the juvenile hearing, and (3) insufficient credible evidence supported bindover. The appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Appellant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether juvenile court erred in finding probable cause to transfer despite identification flaws | Photo-array and in-court ID provided credible evidence raising more than mere suspicion; probable cause is a low standard | Photo ID was vague, suggestive, and unreliable (50% certainty; statutory procedures not strictly followed); no physical evidence | Probable cause was satisfied; array not impermissibly suggestive and in-court ID admissible for probable-cause determination |
| Whether failures to follow R.C. 2933.83 require suppression of out-of-court ID at bindover | Noncompliance must be considered but does not automatically require suppression; totality of circumstances governs | Noncompliance (no folder system, uncertain recording, array not based on witness description) tainted ID | Failure to strictly comply with R.C. 2933.83 alone did not render the procedure impermissibly suggestive under these facts |
| Whether in-court identification was admissible absent independent recollection inquiry | If no prior unlawful police conduct, reliability can be tested by cross-examination and usual trial protections | Court should have determined whether in-court ID was independent of photo-array and thus reliable | The court did not err; no unlawful preidentification conduct and witness was cross-examined, so in-court ID could be considered |
| Whether trial counsel in juvenile proceeding was ineffective for not calling ID expert or moving to suppress | Counsel cross-examined extensively and reasonably relied on that strategy; no reasonable probability the result would differ | Counsel should have presented expert testimony and moved to suppress to challenge ID reliability | No Strickland violation: performance not shown deficient and prejudice not established |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Wilson, 73 Ohio St.3d 40 (holds that absent proper bindover, juvenile court retains exclusive jurisdiction; jurisdictional defects cannot be waived)
- In re A.J.S., 120 Ohio St.3d 185 (describes probable-cause standard for juvenile bindover and court's duty to assess credibility)
- In re D.M., 140 Ohio St.3d 309 (explains juvenile court must assess credibility but not act as trial factfinder in bindover)
- State v. D.W., 133 Ohio St.3d 434 (bindover hearings are critically important and must meet due-process essentials)
- Perry v. New Hampshire, 565 U.S. 228 (identification due-process concerns arise only when law enforcement uses unnecessarily suggestive procedures)
- Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98 (sets out totality-of-circumstances test for reliability of eyewitness ID)
- Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188 (factors for evaluating reliability of eyewitness identification)