State v. George
2016 Ohio 7886
Ohio Ct. App.2016Background
- On August 17, 2014, Brian Montgomery was fatally shot in the parking lot of the Superior Food Mart; his son Brandon was wounded. Two men seen on surveillance video entered the store, left, returned, and opened fire.
- Police had no physical evidence tying Robert George to the shooting; their case relied on multi-camera surveillance footage and witness identifications from images released to the public.
- George was indicted (with co-defendant Mitchell Taylor) on aggravated murder (with a prior-calculation-and-design allegation), murder, multiple felonious-assault counts, attempted aggravated murder, and firearm specifications; Taylor pleaded guilty.
- The state presented a forensic video expert (Tom Ciula) who collected, synced, enhanced, and authenticated multiple camera feeds and prepared sequence videos for the jury.
- At trial the jury convicted George on all counts; he was sentenced to life with parole eligibility after 36 years. George appealed, raising sufficiency, manifest-weight, prosecutorial-misconduct, and expert-qualification claims.
- The Eighth District affirmed, rejecting challenges to the video expert, identity and prior-calculation sufficiency/weight, and prosecutor statements at closing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Qualification of video/audio expert | State: Ciula has specialized training, certifications, experience collecting/syncing/authenticating video; admissible under Evid.R. 702 | George: Court abused discretion in qualifying Ciula as a video/audio expert | Court: No abuse of discretion; Ciula qualified and defense raised no trial objection |
| 2. Sufficiency of identity evidence | State: Multi-angle surveillance plus multiple witnesses (incl. mother, officers) identified George from released images | George: No physical evidence or eyewitness ID at time of shooting; identification insufficient | Court: Evidence sufficient for a rational juror to find George was one shooter |
| 3. Sufficiency / manifest weight for prior calculation & design (aggravated murder) | State: Surveillance shows suspects left, returned, positioned, and fired in coordinated fashion — supports inference of prior calculation and design | George: Short timeframe and lack of direct planning proof precludes prior calculation finding | Court: Circumstantial evidence (return to scene, positioning, execution-style shooting) supports prior calculation; verdict not against manifest weight |
| 4. Prosecutorial misconduct in closing | State: Prosecutor's inferences about planning were reasonable from evidence; comments reflected permissible argument | George: Prosecutor misstated law and implied no need to prove prior calculation; mischaracterized witness testimony (mother) | Court: Remarks were fair inferences from evidence and not misleading; no misconduct |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Awkal, 76 Ohio St.3d 324 (1996) (trial court discretion in qualifying expert witnesses)
- State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (1991) (sufficiency-of-evidence standard)
- State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (1997) (distinguishing sufficiency and manifest-weight review)
- State v. Maxwell, 139 Ohio St.3d 12 (2014) (no bright-line test for prior calculation and design; facts determine issue)
- State v. Coley, 93 Ohio St.3d 253 (2001) (definition of prior calculation and design)
- State v. Campbell, 90 Ohio St.3d 320 (2000) (prior calculation jury instruction and timing/degree of deliberation)
- State v. Cotton, 56 Ohio St.2d 8 (1978) (circumstances showing scheme and opportunity support prior calculation inference)
- State v. Lott, 51 Ohio St.3d 160 (1990) (scope of permissible argument in summation)
- State v. DeHass, 10 Ohio St.2d 230 (1967) (trier of fact determines weight and credibility of evidence)