State v. Griffin
2019 Ohio 37
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- Samson Griffin, a former direct care worker at Blick Clinic group homes, was observed inside an Eastlawn Avenue group home on Aug. 15, 2016; a 42" Sanyo television was stolen that day. Painters working in the home saw Griffin attempt to open a locked cabinet and later saw him leaving with a large flat-screen TV.
- Police investigation revealed Griffin pawned five televisions in the weeks before the thefts; one Snapchat video and GPS/cell-record evidence placed Griffin near Eastlawn and showed a TV in his vehicle. A father-painter identified Griffin from a police photo array (90% certain); the son did not make a positive ID.
- Griffin was indicted for second-degree burglary, moved to suppress the photo-array identification (later withdrew the motion), and did not object at trial to pawn-shop records introduced through testimony from the acquiring pawn company’s operations director.
- At trial, the State introduced pawn records showing Griffin had pawned five TVs, testimony about a prior suspicious visit to a different Blick home three days earlier, the Snapchat video, GPS/cell-call evidence, and the painters’ identifications. Griffin denied the theft and offered an alibi through his wife’s work records.
- A jury convicted Griffin; the trial court sentenced him to two years’ imprisonment. On appeal Griffin raised ineffective-assistance claims (failure to object to hearsay/business records; failure to suppress identification) and argued the trial court committed plain error by not instructing the jury under R.C. 2933.83(C)(3) regarding photo-lineup noncompliance.
Issues
| Issue | Griffin’s Argument | State’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Trial counsel ineffective for not objecting to pawn-shop records as hearsay/lack of foundation | Trial counsel should have objected because the testifying witness retained but did not produce original business records and lacked firsthand knowledge of each transaction | Acquiring pawn company’s operations director had sufficient working knowledge of the record-keeping system and was a qualified witness; objection likely futile and a tactical decision | Overruled — witness was a qualified witness under Evid.R. 803(6); no deficient performance or prejudice shown |
| Trial counsel ineffective for not objecting to pawning-evidence under Evid.R. 403(A) (prejudicial vs. probative) | Evidence of pawning five TVs was more prejudicial and could mislead jury into thinking those TVs were the stolen property | Evidence was highly probative (pattern/motive) and prosecution’s presentation minimized prejudice; jurors were not misled about serial-number mismatches | Overruled — probative value not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice; no prejudice from counsel’s failure to object |
| Trial counsel ineffective for withdrawing motion to suppress photo-array ID as unduly suggestive | Motion should not have been withdrawn because the father was exposed to a photo by his boss before the array, so ID was tainted | The pre-array showing was not state action; any effect on reliability was weight for jury, not suppression; withdrawal was tactical and unlikely to succeed | Overruled — no reasonable probability suppression would succeed; withdrawal was a tactical decision |
| Trial court plain error for not giving jury instruction under R.C. 2933.83(C)(3) re: folder-system noncompliance | Police failed to use the statutory folder system (four blank photos in dummy folders); court should have instructed jury about noncompliance | Folder system is one permissible method; police used a substantially similar blind-administrator system and complied with minimum statutory requirements | Overruled — no plain error; procedures used met the statute’s minimum and instruction was not required |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective assistance standard)
- State v. Gondor, 112 Ohio St.3d 377 (presumption that a licensed attorney is competent)
- State v. Bradley, 42 Ohio St.3d 136 (Strickland/Bradley two-part test articulation)
- State v. Adams, 144 Ohio St.3d 429 (due process and unduly suggestive identification procedures)
- State v. Nields, 93 Ohio St.3d 6 (withdrawing suppression motion can be tactical and not ineffective assistance)