State v. Horton
2014 Ohio 2785
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- On Aug. 18, 2012, Charles Rogers was shot and killed; Markee Horton (appellant) was tried for aggravated murder and tampering with evidence.
- Eyewitness testimony conflicted: one witness (Jennings) said Horton shot Rogers; others (Robinson, Ross) implicated Horton's brother Rufus as the shooter, with Horton either attempting to shoot or aiding.
- Evidence showed Horton retrieved a gun after speaking with Rufus, both went to Rogers’ house, and Horton later disposed of a gun; Horton was convicted by a jury of aggravated murder (with firearm specification) and tampering with evidence and sentenced to 20 years to life.
- Horton appealed, raising three assignments: (1) plain error for failing to provide separate verdict forms for principal vs. complicity, (2) plain error for not instructing jury it must be unanimous as to principal vs. aider/abettor, and (3) ineffective assistance for counsel’s failure to object.
- The court reviewed unobjected trial matters for plain error and applied Strickland for the ineffective-assistance claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court erred by using a single verdict form for aggravated murder rather than separate forms for principal vs. complicity | State: a verdict finding guilt of aggravated murder is sufficient because complicity can be charged in terms of the principal offense | Horton: single general verdict permitted nonunanimous findings about who was the principal shooter, violating Crim.R. 31(A) | No plain error: complicity may be charged in terms of the principal offense; evidence supported either theory, so separate forms not required |
| Whether jury must be specifically instructed to be unanimous on whether defendant was principal or aider/abettor | State: general unanimity instructions suffice; no special instruction required | Horton: failure to require specific unanimity on theory allowed nonunanimous verdicts | No plain error: precedent permits omission where evidence supports both theories and general unanimity instruction was given |
| Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to object to verdict forms/instructions | State: even if deficient, Horton cannot show prejudice because evidence supported guilt on either theory and jury poll confirmed unanimity | Horton: failure to object likely changed outcome given conflicting ID of shooter | No prejudice shown under Strickland; jury poll and overall evidence make different result unlikely |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Jackson, 92 Ohio St.3d 436 (2001) (standard for reviewing unobjected trial error as plain error)
- State v. Johnson, 93 Ohio St.3d 240 (2001) (elements and liability under complicity law)
- State v. Herring, 94 Ohio St.3d 246 (2002) (complicity may be proven where indictment states principal offense)
- State v. Stojetz, 84 Ohio St.3d 452 (1999) (no plain error in failing to instruct jury it must be unanimous as to principal vs. aider/abettor when evidence supports both)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- State v. Bradley, 42 Ohio St.3d 136 (1989) (definition of prejudice standard under Ohio law for ineffective assistance claims)