State v. Hamm
2017 Ohio 5595
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Two indictments against Quran Hamm: B-1405019 (trafficking reduced to guilty plea; three WUD counts; three felonious-assault counts with firearm specs) and B-1503840 (felonious assault of a deputy while jailed). The court consolidated the indictments over Hamm’s objection.
- Jury convicted Hamm of two felonious-assault counts (with gun specifications); the trial court found him guilty on WUD counts; aggregate sentence 29 years.
- Key eyewitnesses: Officers Bode and Weigand (traffic stop, shots fired; Bode later identified Hamm as the runner/shooter), Deputy Smucker (allegedly punched while delivering jail lunch), and deputy Brady (witnessed Smucker being struck).
- Two jailhouse informants (Christopher Hill and Kevan Williamson) testified Hamm admitted shooting at officers and hitting Smucker; both testified Hamm threatened them; jail ceiling graffiti corroborated threats.
- Defense raised multiple pretrial and trial claims: ineffective assistance by prior counsel (M.J. Donovan) for alleged contact with informant/prosecutor, requests to exclude informant Hill, Evid.R. 404(B) challenges to "other-acts" evidence admitted about jail incidents and threats, hearsay/Confrontation Clause challenges to an excited utterance from co-defendant/driver Woods, joinder prejudice, Evid.R. 403 exclusion of Hill, and cumulative error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of "other-acts" evidence (jail incidents) | State: incidents show motive/intent to assault Smucker and rebut defense that Smucker fell accidentally | Hamm: incidents immaterial and unfairly prejudicial | Admitted: relevant for motive/intent; probative value not substantially outweighed by prejudice (no abuse of discretion) |
| Admissibility of threats/"other-acts" (threats to informants) | State: threats show consciousness of guilt/admission by conduct | Hamm: threats were improper other-acts evidence | Admitted: threats admissible as consciousness of guilt/admission by conduct |
| Hearsay / Excited utterance (Woods’ statement about shooting) | State: Woods’ spontaneous statement admissible as excited utterance | Hamm: statement was hearsay and barred | Admitted: statement qualified as excited utterance; no abuse of discretion |
| Confrontation Clause re Woods’ statement | State: statement nontestimonial; Confrontation Clause not implicated | Hamm: admission violated Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses | No violation: statement nontestimonial (volunteered, not formal interrogation); plain-error review fails |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Williams, 983 N.E.2d 1278 (Ohio 2012) (three-step test for other-acts admissibility under Evid.R. 404(B))
- State v. Lowe, 634 N.E.2d 616 (Ohio 1994) (other-acts rules construed against admissibility)
- State v. Burson, 311 N.E.2d 526 (Ohio 1974) (background on other-acts evidence)
- State v. Hector, 249 N.E.2d 912 (Ohio 1969) (other-acts evidentiary principles)
- State v. Torres, 421 N.E.2d 1288 (Ohio 1981) (joinder favored; burden to show prejudice)
- State v. Lott, 555 N.E.2d 293 (Ohio 1990) (joinder nonprejudicial when evidence is admissible in other trials or is simple/direct)
- State v. Diar, 900 N.E.2d 565 (Ohio 2008) (abuse-of-discretion standard for other-acts rulings)
- State v. Sage, 510 N.E.2d 343 (Ohio 1987) (admission/exclusion of relevant evidence within trial court discretion)
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (U.S. 2004) (Confrontation Clause bars testimonial out-of-court statements absent cross-exam)
- State v. Jones, 984 N.E.2d 948 (Ohio 2012) (four-part test for excited utterance admissibility)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-part ineffective-assistance test)
- State v. Bradley, 538 N.E.2d 373 (Ohio 1989) (applying Strickland in Ohio)
- State v. Rogers, 38 N.E.3d 860 (Ohio 2015) (plain-error standard for preserved objections)
- State v. Garner, 656 N.E.2d 623 (Ohio 1995) (jury presumed to follow limiting instructions)
- State v. Nields, 752 N.E.2d 859 (Ohio 2001) (cross-examination as safeguard against unreliable jailhouse informant testimony)
- State v. Richey, 595 N.E.2d 915 (Ohio 1992) (threats/intimidation admissible as consciousness of guilt)