State v. Fowler
2017 Ohio 438
Ohio Ct. App.2017Background
- On Dec. 20, 2014, Latasha N. Fowler allegedly retrieved a handgun during a street fight and fired at Chantel Gillespie and the crowd; four eyewitnesses and a cell‑phone video identified Fowler as the shooter.
- Indicted on two counts of felonious assault (one conviction, one acquittal), a firearm specification, carrying a concealed weapon, and having a weapon while under disability.
- At trial, testimony referred to a prior dispute: an allegation that Fowler (or her boyfriend) stole the victim’s mother’s ID and used it to cash bad checks.
- Defense moved in limine to exclude the ID/theft testimony as irrelevant and unduly prejudicial; the court denied the motion and admitted the testimony.
- Officer Pellegrini testified he was given the name "Latasha" during his initial investigation; defense objected to this as hearsay.
- Jury convicted on felonious assault with firearm specification and carrying a concealed weapon; the trial court convicted on the disability count after a bench trial. Sentence imposed, appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Fowler's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of testimony about alleged ID theft (motion in limine / Evid.R. 404(B)) | Evidence explained motive/plan for the fight and was intrinsic to the incident, not 404(B) "other acts" evidence | Evidence was irrelevant, highly prejudicial, and offered to show bad character/propensity | Admission proper: found intrinsic to the charged events and relevant to motive; no reversible abuse of discretion |
| Hearsay challenge to officer saying he was given the name "Latasha" | Statement explained officer’s investigative steps (not offered for truth); source (Eyebrow Gillespie) testified and was cross‑examined | Testimony was prejudicial hearsay offered to prove Fowler was the suspect | Admission proper: non‑hearsay as it explained police conduct; harmless if treated as hearsay because declarant testified |
| Harmless‑error / prejudice from the contested evidence | Any error was harmless because of overwhelming identification evidence and jury instruction limiting use of the other‑act evidence | Admission unfairly prejudiced the jury and required reversal | Harmless: jury instruction and overwhelming evidence (4 eyewitness IDs + video) preclude reversible prejudice |
| Jury instruction limiting use of the ID allegation | Instruction prevented use of the allegation as proof of guilt and permitted consideration only for motive if guilt found | Instruction insufficient to cure prejudice | Instruction adequate; juries presumed to follow it, and split verdict supports lack of prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Williams, 134 Ohio St.3d 521 (2012) (sets three‑step test for admitting other‑acts evidence under Evid.R. 404(B))
- State v. Morris, 132 Ohio St.3d 337 (2012) (abuse‑of‑discretion standard for evidentiary rulings explained)
- State v. Dever, 64 Ohio St.3d 401 (1992) (trial court has broad discretion admitting other‑acts evidence)
- State v. Smith, 49 Ohio St.3d 137 (1990) (other‑acts evidence admissible for proper non‑propensity purposes)
- State v. Issa, 93 Ohio St.3d 49 (2001) (appellate review deferential for evidentiary rulings)
- State v. Mammone, 139 Ohio St.3d 467 (2014) (jury presumed to follow court instructions)