State v. Gamble
2017 Ohio 1527
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Defendant Sherrod Gamble was indicted for aggravated murder, murder, and having a weapon while under disability after K.S. was shot and killed in a Columbus apartment; jury trial occurred March 2016.
- Witnesses (victim’s nephew D.R. and niece Z.G.) identified Gamble as the shooter; D.R. observed Gamble shoot K.S., and Z.G. saw Gamble change his shirt and leave shortly after the shooting.
- Physical evidence: a bloodied white tank top found in the apartment with K.S.’s DNA, ballistics matching an unused bullet from a can in the living room to a bullet recovered from the victim, and coroner testimony describing multiple close-range head and face wounds and a fatal chest wound.
- Cell‑phone tower data contradicted Gamble’s alibi (claimed he was at a bar and then at his girlfriend’s), showing his phone in the general area of the homicide at the relevant time.
- Jury convicted Gamble of aggravated murder (with firearm and RVO specifications), murder, and weapon-under-disability; court merged counts and sentenced him to life without parole plus additional terms on specifications and the disability count.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence established "prior calculation and design" for aggravated murder | State: circumstantial and direct evidence (arguing, familiarity, arming, multiple close‑range shots, execution‑style final shot) support prior calculation and design | Gamble: shooting was a spontaneous eruption; no evidence of preplanning or choice of site/weapon comparable to Walker | Court: Affirmed — evidence supported prior calculation and design; conviction not against manifest weight |
| Sufficiency of evidence for aggravated murder | State: combined eyewitness ID, DNA, ballistics, autopsy, cell‑tower data suffice | Gamble: insufficient proof of prior calculation and design, so conviction should be reversed | Court: Overruled — sufficiency (and thus Crim.R.29) satisfied via manifest weight analysis |
| Appropriateness of denying Crim.R. 29 motion for acquittal | State: evidence met legal standard for reasonable juror to convict | Gamble: trial court erred in denying motion because element of prior calculation and design lacking | Court: Denial proper because sufficiency standard met, so Crim.R.29 motion properly overruled |
| Manifest weight of the evidence overall | State: the weight of credible evidence favors conviction | Gamble: verdict against manifest weight because no planning shown | Court: Not against manifest weight; jury did not lose its way or create miscarriage of justice |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Taylor, 78 Ohio St.3d 15 (1997) (no bright‑line test for prior calculation and design; case‑specific analysis)
- State v. Cotton, 56 Ohio St.2d 8 (1978) (sufficient time and opportunity + scheme can establish prior calculation)
- State v. Robbins, 58 Ohio St.2d 74 (1978) (retrieving a weapon then immediately killing can show prior calculation)
- State v. Palmer, 80 Ohio St.3d 543 (1997) (multiple close‑range shots to head support more than instantaneous deliberation)
- State v. D'Ambrosio, 67 Ohio St.3d 185 (1993) (prior calculation can exist even where conceiving and executing plan occurred within minutes)
- State v. Goodwin, 84 Ohio St.3d 331 (1999) (execution‑style killing supports finding of prior calculation)
- State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (1991) (circumstantial and direct evidence have equal probative value)