State v. Fant
2016 Ohio 7429
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2016Background
- On Oct. 28, 2013, Joseph Little testified that while driving a rental car he was shot at by Keith Fant, who was a passenger in a vehicle driven by Jonathan Hilson; several 911 callers reported gunshots that afternoon.
- Fant was indicted for felonious assault (R.C. 2903.11) and two firearm specifications (using a firearm to facilitate the offense; discharging a firearm from a motor vehicle).
- At the first trial a juror conflict arose and a mistrial was declared after voir dire; Fant’s counsel waived the defendant’s presence at the in-chambers proceeding.
- A second trial followed after the mistrial. The State exercised a peremptory challenge to strike the only African‑American veniremember; Fant raised a Batson challenge which the trial court rejected.
- The jury convicted Fant on felonious assault and both firearm specifications; the court imposed mandatory, consecutive sentences for the specifications and the underlying offense for a total of 12 years.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence (Crim.R. 29) | State: eyewitness ID, confession call, 911 reports suffice to prove felonious assault and firearm specs | Fant: insufficient where no gun, casings, or forensic proof recovered | Denied — testimony and circumstantial evidence sufficient to support convictions |
| Manifest weight of the evidence | State: evidence uncontroverted and credible | Fant: convictions against manifest weight | Denied — jury did not lose its way; verdict supported by substantial evidence |
| Batson challenge to peremptory strike | State: offered race-neutral reasons (inattention; hesitancy about complicity instruction) | Fant: strike targeted sole African‑American veniremember | Denied — trial court found explanations facially race-neutral and not clearly erroneous |
| Speedy trial (statutory) | State: delays tolled by discovery requests, continuances, courtroom unavailability | Fant: argued time exceeded statutory limit | Denied — elapsed days well under statutory period after tolling (42 days counted) |
| Right to be present / Double jeopardy | State: counsel waived Fant’s presence; mistrial requested by Fant; no prosecutorial misconduct | Fant: absence at mistrial hearing violated right to be present and barred retrial | Denied — counsel waived presence; no double jeopardy bar because defendant requested mistrial and no misconduct shown |
| Jury instructions (inferior offense) | State: evidence showed intent to injure, not merely threaten | Fant: requested aggravated menacing instruction as inferior degree offense | Denied — evidence supported felonious assault, instruction for aggravated menacing unnecessary |
| Consecutive mandatory firearm sentences / merger | State: firearm specifications are sentencing enhancements and R.C. mandates consecutive terms | Fant: argued merger under R.C. 2941.25 should prevent consecutive specs | Denied — firearm specifications are enhancement provisions and statutes mandate consecutive mandatory terms |
Key Cases Cited
- Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (prohibits race‑based peremptory strikes)
- Foster v. Chatman, 136 S. Ct. 1737 (U.S. 2016) (deference to trial-court factual findings in Batson third‑step review)
- State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (1997) (distinguishing sufficiency and manifest‑weight standards)
- State v. Hill, 75 Ohio St.3d 195 (1996) (trial trier of fact best positioned to judge witness credibility)
- State v. Ford, 128 Ohio St.3d 398 (2011) (firearm specifications are sentencing enhancements and do not merge with predicate offense)
- State v. Loza, 71 Ohio St.3d 61 (1994) (double jeopardy principles re: mistrials and exception for prosecutorial misconduct)
- State v. Gaines, 46 Ohio St.3d 65 (1989) (circumstantial evidence can establish firearm operability)
- State v. Smith, 80 Ohio St.3d 89 (1997) (standard for sufficiency review)