State v. Harris, 2022 Ohio 4630

In Nov. 2018 a multi-defendant indictment charged Marvin Harris and three codefendants with aggravated murder, murder, multiple attempted murders and felonious assaults; codefendants Taylor, Larissa, and Shields pleaded to reduced charges and agreed to testify against Harris.
The shooting on Buckeye/E.116–117th killed a 12‑year‑old (A.L.B.) and seriously injured others; witnesses, plea‑deal testimony (Shields), cell‑phone records, texts between Harris and Taylor, and DNA on shell casings implicated Harris.
At trial the prosecution played recorded video statements of two codefendants (Larissa and Taylor) in open court to attempt to refresh their recollection; defense did not object at trial and the videos were not admitted into evidence.
The state introduced a photograph recovered during a search showing a firearm in a codefendant’s home (next to a baby crib); the gun was not linked to the crime scene.
The jury convicted Harris of murder (lesser‑included), multiple attempted murders, felonious assaults, and weapons offenses; the trial court imposed concurrent and consecutive prison terms totaling an aggregate term (including firearm specifications).
On appeal Harris raised three issues: (1) plain error in allowing the prosecution to play prior recorded statements before the jury, (2) ineffective assistance for counsel’s failure to object, and (3) erroneous admission of the photograph of an unrelated firearm.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Playing prior recorded statements to jury (refreshing recollection)	State: videos were used to refresh witnesses’ memory and were not admitted as evidence	Harris: playing the videos before the jury improperly placed prior statements before the jury and led to improper impeachment	Court: It was error to play videos in front of the jury (should have been shown outside jurors’ presence), but no plain error — any error did not affect outcome given overwhelming evidence of guilt
Ineffective assistance for failing to object to playing videos	State: trial counsel’s choices are tactical; strong presumption of competence; defendant must show prejudice	Harris: counsel deficient for not objecting; lack of objection forfeits preservation	Court: Counsel presumed competent; even if error, Harris failed to show prejudice under Strickland — claim denied
Admission of photograph of unrelated firearm	State: photo showed thorough investigation and weapons were test‑fired; relevant to investigation	Harris: photo showed an unrelated gun (next to baby’s crib) with no link to the shooting and was unduly prejudicial	Court: Admission was an abuse of discretion (irrelevant other‑weapons evidence) but harmless because overwhelming independent evidence of guilt

State v. Powell, 971 N.E.2d 865 (Ohio 2012) (prior recorded statements may refresh recollection but must not be placed before the jury)
State v. Ballew, 667 N.E.2d 369 (Ohio 1996) (party may not read prior statement aloud to jury when used to refresh recollection)
State v. Scott, 285 N.E.2d 344 (Ohio 1972) (distinguishes testimony refreshed from present recollection from admission of out‑of‑court statements)
Johnson v. Abdullah, 187 N.E.3d 463 (Ohio 2021) (abuse‑of‑discretion framework and when discretion is constrained by law)
Rohde v. Farmer, 262 N.E.2d 685 (Ohio 1970) (limits application of abuse‑of‑discretion where no discretion exists)
State v. Thomas, 92 N.E.3d 821 (Ohio 2017) (admission of other‑weapons evidence may be harmless when independent evidence of guilt is overwhelming)
Barnes v. State, 759 N.E.2d 1240 (Ohio 2001) (plain‑error standard explanation)
United States v. Dominguez Benitez, 542 U.S. 74 (2004) (standard for establishing prejudice when defendant failed to object)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two‑prong ineffective assistance of counsel test)
Blakemore v. Blakemore, 450 N.E.2d 1140 (Ohio 1983) (appellate standard for abuse of discretion review)
Sage v. State, 510 N.E.2d 343 (Ohio 1987) (trial court discretion in admission of relevant evidence)