State v. Houston
2017 Ohio 4179
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Defendant Antonio Houston (aka "Papa") was tried on consolidated indictments for two July 2015 drive-by shootings of members of a rival gang (Broadway v. Fleet) and for recovery of a firearm from a vehicle he occupied after his July 13, 2015 arrest.
- Victims reported a black SUV/Kia and identified "Antonio Curry/Papa" as the shooter; one victim (Maurice) made statements to officers at the scene and another (Larry) identified Houston in a photo lineup and at trial.
- Police recovered two loaded 9mm handguns from a purse in the front seat of the car Houston was riding in; forensic testing linked cartridge casings from the July 8 shooting to one recovered gun.
- Investigators also recovered cell-phone videos and texts from Houston showing him with a 9mm and using gang signs and anti-rival statements; the videos were used to show motive/context.
- A jury convicted Houston of multiple offenses across the three cases (including felonious assault, attempted felonious assault, improper handling of a firearm, weapons-under-disability, firearm specifications, and repeat violent offender specifications); combined terms were imposed consecutively.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Houston) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Joinder/severance of three indictments | Offenses formed a common scheme/course of conduct; joinder proper under Crim.R.8/13 (or admissible under Evid.R.404(B)) | Joinder was prejudicial, especially recovery-of-gun case (CR-597529-A) should have been severed | Joinder affirmed: offenses were connected (same victims/rival gang/shooting pattern); evidence admissible under 404(B) and joinder favored under law |
| Admission of gang-related videos/texts and gang testimony | Gang evidence and phone media were probative of motive, identity, and context (allowed by Evid.R.404(B)) | Testimony and videos unfairly prejudiced jury by suggesting propensity for violence | Court upheld admission: evidence relevant to motive/relationship; trial court limited scope and balanced prejudice under Evid.R.403 |
| Admission of victims' out-of-court statements as excited utterances / Confrontation Clause | Maurice's on-scene statements were nontestimonial excited utterances made under stress and admissible under Evid.R.803(2) | Statements were not contemporaneous and were testimonial, violating Confrontation Clause | Court found statements were made within minutes while declarant was under stress, nontestimonial, admissible as excited utterances; no Confrontation Clause violation |
| Sufficiency of evidence for felonious assault / claim of ineffective assistance | Evidence (eyewitness ID, photo lineup, recovered gun linked to casings, videos/texts showing motive) sufficient to support convictions; counsel challenged hearsay but objected at trial | Argues insufficient proof shooter was Houston; counsel ineffective for failing to object to hearsay and duplicitous counts | Court held evidence sufficient under Jackson/Jenks standard; counsel not ineffective (objections were made, charges not duplicitous; sentencing merged where appropriate) |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Diar, 900 N.E.2d 565 (Ohio 2008) (joinder and related analysis favoring consolidation under Crim.R.8/13)
- State v. Bethel, 854 N.E.2d 150 (Ohio 2006) (gang affiliation admissible under Evid.R.404(B) to show motive when relationships central)
- State v. Schiebel, 564 N.E.2d 54 (Ohio 1990) (general support for joinder and efficiency in criminal trials)
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (U.S. 2004) (testimonial hearsay barred by Confrontation Clause)
- Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 (U.S. 2006) (distinguishing testimonial vs. nontestimonial statements; emergency-focused statements are nontestimonial)
- State v. Jenks, 574 N.E.2d 492 (Ohio 1991) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-prong standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)