State v. Griffin, 2013 Ohio 416

Griffin was convicted in Lorain County for multiple counts including aggravated murder, murder, and weapons under disability after police investigated the November 26, 2009 death of Alberto Gutierrez.
Griffin lived across the hall from the victim; his phone was the last number dialed on the victim’s phone, and his car and phone were near the scene around the estimated time of death.
Evidence included gunshot residue and primer residue found in Griffin’s glove, jacket, and car; a glove, grass, and zipper-teeth fragment linked to the crime scene.
Griffin challenged the admissibility of cell phone records obtained via subpoena under 18 U.S.C. 2703, and the court denied suppression.
The jury found Griffin guilty on all counts and the trial court sentenced him to life in prison.
Griffin appeals arguing suppression error, manifest weight, prosecutorial misconduct, accomplice instruction, and ineffective assistance of counsel.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Suppression of cell phone records should have been granted	Griffin—Smith requires warrants for arrestee data	State—records were obtained via 18 U.S.C. 2703 subpoena, not a search	No error; 18 U.S.C. 2703 valid; Smith distinguishable
Convictions are against the manifest weight of the evidence	Weight of circumstantial evidence weighs against conviction	Record supports conviction beyond reasonable doubt	Convictions not against the weight of the evidence
Prosecutor misconduct by commenting on Griffin’s rights	Commentary on his refusal to swab hands and consult counsel prejudiced trial	No plain error given substantial independent evidence	Assignments overruled; no plain error found
Trial court failure to give accomplice instruction regarding Ronaye Ewing	Accomplice status warranted a specific instruction	No clear accomplice status; no rare circumstances shown	Overruled; no error in instructions
Ineffective assistance for not bifurcating weapons under disability	Counsel should have severed count to avoid prejudice	Strategic choice; no showing of prejudice	Overruled; no deficient performance or prejudice shown

State v. Mills, 62 Ohio St.3d 357 (1992) (mixed question of law and fact on suppression review)
State v. Fanning, 1 Ohio St.3d 19 (1982) (standard for review of trial court factual findings)
State v. McNamara, 124 Ohio App.3d 706 (1997) (independently review legal standards post factual finding)
State v. Burnside, 100 Ohio St.3d 152 (2003) (Burnside—review of suppression standards (de novo))
State v. Hobbs, 133 Ohio St.3d 43 (2012) (Burnside applied to suppression and factual findings)
State v. Smith, 14 Ohio St.3d 13 (1984) (Fourth Amendment search of arrestee data; distinguishable from subpoena)
State v. Neely, 2012-Ohio-212 (2012) (warrant not required for subpoenaed records (appellate reasoning))
State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (1997) (manifest weight review; exceptional cases require reversal only when evidence weighs heavily against conviction)
State v. Otten, 33 Ohio App.3d 339 (1986) (thirteenth juror doctrine for manifest weight)
State v. Lollis, 2010-Ohio-4457 (2010) (plain error review limits; substantial rights)
State v. Diar, 120 Ohio St.3d 460 (2008) (standard for prosecutorial misconduct analysis)