State v. Hicks, 957 N.E.2d 866

Hicks was indicted in Sept. 2009 on eight counts including aggravated murder, kidnapping, aggravated robbery, and attempted murder; capital specifications (felony-murder and mass-murder) were dismissed before trial and the remaining charges were tried to a jury.
The State’s theory tied Hicks to the codefendant–the suspect “Daquan”–who orchestrated a robbery and subsequent shootings in Perk Park, Cleveland, on Feb. 22, 2009.
Hicks presented a comprehensive alibi through ten witnesses placing him at his aunt’s house from Feb. 19–22, 2009; Mancuso testified Daquan was at Scorchers but Hicks was not.
Eyewitness identifications of Hicks as Daquan were central to the State’s case; several identifications occurred during trial, with some witnesses unable to identify Hicks pre-trial.
A prosecutor question insinuating that defense counsel coached witnesses was improper; the trial court did not sustain the objection and did not give a curative instruction, affecting Hicks’s defense.
The jury convicted Hicks of murder and related offenses (with other counts acquitted or dismissed); Hicks was sentenced to 61 years to life, and on appeal the judgment was reversed and remanded for a new trial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Prosecutor’s cross-examination insinuation about coaching witnesses deprived fair trial	State argues questions were proper memory-interest inquiry	Hicks argues questions were improper and prejudicial	Sustained; error violated Hicks’s rights; reversal and remand

State v. Treesh, 90 Ohio St.3d 460 (Ohio 2001) (prosecutorial misconduct standard and fair-trial focus)
State v. Bey, 85 Ohio St.3d 487 (Ohio 1999) (preservation of fairness in trial; denial of prejudicial error)
United States v. Hastings, 461 U.S. 499 (U.S. 1983) (jury fairness and limits on prosecutorial misconduct)
State v. Williams, 38 Ohio St.3d 346 (Ohio 1988) (whether error is prejudicial when overwhelming remaining evidence exists)
State v. Hunt, 97 Ohio App.3d 372 (Ohio 1994) (prosecutor’s misstatement can prejudice when credibility rests with defense witnesses)