State v. Franklin
2011 Ohio 6802
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- Franklin was convicted by jury of heroin possession (under 1g and 10–50g range) and of Engaging in a Pattern of Corrupt Activity; sentences run concurrently.
- Indictment re-indictment B charged a pattern of corrupt activity with a predicate offense (possession of heroin) alleged; State sought to prove multiple incidents across 2006–2009.
- Several drug-trafficking incidents involved Franklin and co-defendant Griffin, with overlapping acts and participants, forming the alleged enterprise.
- Police recovered heroin, cash, cell phones, and a “Never Get Busted Again” DVD/case near seized contraband supporting enterprise participation.
- Defense raised Batson challenges, jury instructions disputes, claims of bias, severance/joinder issues, and prosecutorial/ evidentiary challenges at trial.
- Trial court ultimately reversed the Pattern of Corrupt Activity conviction and remanded for further proceedings, while affirming other convictions and rulings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether re-indictment B adequately set predicate offenses | Franklin argues indictment lacks predicate offenses. | Franklin contends missing predicate acts violate statute. | Indictment sufficient; no defects found. |
| Whether Batson challenges were properly resolved | Franklin asserts racially motivated peremptory strikes. | State provided race-neutral explanations. | Batson claim overruled; explanations found race-neutral. |
| Whether jury instructions properly defined 'participate in' and the enterprise | Franklin argues instruction should align with Siferd and federal标准. | Trial court instructions adequate. | Error: needs instruction in line with Boyle/Turkette; partial reversal and remand on enterprise element. |
| Whether the trial court exhibited overt bias against Franklin | Bias alleged during proceedings and appeals. | No prejudicial bias proven. | No reversible bias; claims overruled. |
| Whether joinder with co-defendant Griffin was improper | Joinder caused confusion and prejudice. | Joinder appropriate given continuous enterprise conduct. | Joinder upheld; no due process violation. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Turkette, 452 U.S. 576 (U.S. 1981) (enterprise separate from pattern; three elements concept)
- Boyle v. United States, 556 U.S. 938 (U.S. 2009) (enterprise must have structural features; clarified Turkette)
- State v. Fritz, 178 Ohio St.3d 65 (Ohio 2008) (evidence of enterprise may satisfy RICO-like charges)
- State v. Siferd, 151 Ohio App.3d 103 (Ohio 2002) (interpretation of 'participate in' under 2923.32)
- State v. Murphy, 65 Ohio St.3d 588 (Ohio 1992) (indictment sufficiency and literal phrasing of statute guidance)
- State v. Teasley, 2002-Ohio-2333 (Ohio 2002) (Ohio RICO guidance and enterprise existence)
- State v. Scott, 26 Ohio St.3d 92 (Ohio 1986) (usefulness of requested charges; standard for instruction adequacy)
- State v. Owen, 2009-Ohio- (Ohio 1999) (application of federal RICO enterprise concepts in Ohio)