State v. Edwards, 2013 Ohio 1290

Appellant Tarence E. Edwards was secretly indicted on six counts: aggravated robbery with a repeat violent offender specification; robbery (two counts, one with repeat specification); kidnapping with repeated spec; abduction; and theft.
Victim Omar Suleiman testified that three men robbed Raw Styles; one wore a mask and threatened him with a knife in the back room, while two others acted in the store.
Witnesses and police identified Speedy and Martin; Edwards was later identified in a photo lineup as the second man with a partially covered face, and Speedy and Martin implicated Edwards.
Speedy testified at trial that Edwards (T-Rex) was Martin’s nephew and participated in planning the robbery; Martin and Edwards drove to the store, Robbery occurred, and cash was taken.
A jailhouse tape recording of Edwards discussing money with the mother of his child was admitted; Edwards also testified with witnesses claiming he was at his mother’s house and his SUV was elsewhere.
The jury found Edwards guilty on all counts; he was sentenced to a 21-year prison term plus an additional six years for the repeat violent offender specification, with some counts merged; Edwards appealed the convictions and sentences.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether admission of out-of-court statements violated Confrontation Clause	Edwards argues co-defendant statements and others’ implications were testimonial and uncrossable	State contends limiting instruction cured Bruton issues and most statements were admissible as non-hearsay	No reversible error; admission largely harmless despite Bruton issue.
Whether pre-trial denials of guilt were admissible	These denials were irrelevant or prejudicial	Statements were relevant under Evid.R. 401 and probative of credibility	Admissible; errors, if any, were harmless.
Whether the jail-house tape segment was admissible	Tape was relevant to motive and credibility	Some inaudible portions should render it unreliable	Admissible; inaudible portions did not render tape untrustworthy.
Whether aggravated robbery and kidnapping are allied offenses requiring merger	Two offenses share a common plan and restraint	Separate animus supported separate punishments	Not merged; separate animus found; permissible to sentence both.
Whether consecutive sentences were properly imposed given facts not found by jury	Foster/Blakely requires jury findings for consecutive sentencing	Judge has discretion to determine consecutive nature based on conduct	Consecutive sentences upheld; sentencing within statutory framework.

Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (U.S. 2004) (Confrontation Clause requires testing by cross-examination for testimonial statements)
Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 (U.S. 2006) (Testimonial vs. non-testimonial relevance in confrontation analysis)
State v. Robb, 88 Ohio St.3d 59 (Ohio 2000) (Tape admissibility hinges on authenticity and trustworthiness)
State v. Coleman, 85 Ohio St.3d 129 (Ohio 1999) (Admissibility of tape recordings; authenticity considerations)
Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 (U.S. 1968) (Confrontation concerns with non-testifying co-defendant statements)
State v. Moritz, 63 Ohio St.2d 150 (Ohio 1980) (Bruton applicability to co-defendant statements)