State v. Ferguson
2013 Ohio 4798
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Appellant Jared T. Ferguson was convicted in Franklin Cty. C.P. of two offenses: failure to comply with a police order by eluding/ fleeing (R.C. 2921.331) and receiving stolen property (R.C. 2913.51); sentences were three years and six months, consecutive.
- The offenses followed an attempted Cracker Barrel robbery in Grove City; Tyson Teague testified he owed Ferguson money and planned the robbery to obtain cash.
- Teague fled in a black SUV; Ferguson was in a red Chevrolet Tahoe SUV and refused to exit when ordered by police.
- During the pursuit, Ferguson allegedly drove at speeds around 80 mph in 35 mph zones, in heavy traffic, risking harm to pedestrians and others; the SUV crashed at the end of the chase.
- Teague and Ferguson were charged in a single indictment; Teague testified against Ferguson, and the jury found Ferguson guilty of the two cited offenses and not guilty on other counts; Ferguson appeals five assignments of error.
- The court affirmed Ferguson’s convictions and rejected all assignments of error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Evid.R. 613(B) collateral impeachment evidence | State argues no abuse; defense failed to prove admissible extrinsic evidence | Ferguson contends Detective Ryan’s testimony about Teague’s statements should be admitted | No error; foundation not properly laid; no 613(B) admissibility under the rule; no constitutional violation |
| Duress/necessity—jury instruction | State contends evidence did not support affirmative defenses | Ferguson asserts these defenses should have been instructed | No reversible error; evidence did not support defenses; plain error not shown |
| Accomplice-testimony instruction | State required grave-suspicion framing for accomplice testimony | Ferguson argues instruction was not substantially compliant | Error in omitting 'grave suspicion' language; harmless under Crim.R. 52(A) given other evidence supporting guilt |
| Crim.R. 29—sufficiency of the evidence | State maintained evidence established elements of both offenses | Ferguson challenged sufficiency | Evidence viewed in light most favorable to prosecution could rationally support elements of failure to comply and receiving stolen property |
| Manifest weight of the evidence | State asserts verdicts supported by the record | Ferguson contends weight undermines verdicts | Convictions not against the weight of the evidence; no reversal warranted |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Garrard, 170 Ohio App.3d 487 (2007-Ohio-1244) (recognizes signals (lights/siren) satisfy stop requirement under R.C. 2921.331(B))
- State v. Sutton, 2007-Ohio-3792 (2007-Ohio-3792) (accomplice instruction can be substantial compliance under R.C. 2923.03(D))
- State v. Fitzgerald, 2004-Ohio-6173 (2004-Ohio-6173) (discusses substantial compliance with accomplice instruction)
- State v. DeLong, 70 Ohio App.3d 402 (1990-Ohio-?) (dual conviction/often allied offenses of similar import)
- State v. Reiner, 未知 (未知) (abuse-analysis reference for evidentiary rulings (general principle))