2018 Ohio 3043
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- On Nov. 20, 2015 William Barnes was shot and killed while seated in his car; nearby surveillance video showed two men enter his vehicle from a blue Trailblazer and flashes from the right rear passenger area consistent with gunfire.
- Shell casings were recovered inside and outside the vehicle; autopsy showed multiple back-to-front, right-to-left gunshot trajectories consistent with a shooter in the right rear passenger seat.
- DNA swabs taken from the roof above the right rear door (where the rear passenger placed his hand) identified a major component linked to Cardell Houston; other mixed samples were tested with TrueAllele but yielded no matches to Houston.
- Houston was convicted at a bench trial of murder (one count proceeded to sentencing) and received 15 years to life plus a consecutive three-year firearm specification; the court ordered that sentence to run consecutive to sentences in several other cases.
- In a consolidated appeal, Houston challenged manifest weight, ineffective assistance (re: TrueAllele and sentencing), a Confrontation Clause issue (admission of a lab report through a testifying scientist who did not perform the test), and the trial court’s view that consecutive sentencing in an unrelated case was mandatory.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Manifest weight of evidence supporting murder conviction | State: video, eyewitness, shell casings, autopsy, and DNA linking Houston to hand on car support conviction | Houston: video does not prove rear passenger was shooter; identification and motive issues | Conviction not against manifest weight; evidence supported shooter being right rear passenger and DNA tied Houston to that contact |
| TrueAllele DNA testing / ineffective assistance for not objecting | State: major-component match to Houston did not rely on TrueAllele; TrueAllele used only on other mixed items that yielded no match | Houston: counsel ineffective for not objecting to use of TrueAllele evidence | No ineffective assistance; major-component match did not depend on TrueAllele and techniques used were accepted |
| Confrontation Clause — testimonial lab report introduced by scientist who did not perform test | State: report and witness testimony admissible; trial testimony was cumulative to pathologist evidence | Houston: violated Sixth Amendment per Bullcoming because the testifying scientist did not perform test | No plain error found; even if error, trace-evidence testimony was cumulative to autopsy/pathologist and would not have changed outcome |
| Ineffective assistance at sentencing (failure to argue for concurrent sentences) | State: sentencing supported by record of offender’s criminal history; counsel provided PSI and allowed allocution | Houston: counsel deficient and prejudice shown because no argument for concurrent sentences made | No ineffective assistance; court would not likely have imposed different sentence given findings and record |
Key Cases Cited
- Thompkins v. Ohio, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (broader manifest-weight review standard)
- DeHass v. State, 10 Ohio St.2d 230 (credibility and weight of evidence are for the trier of fact)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective-assistance two-prong test)
- Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 564 U.S. 647 (Confrontation Clause — lab report testimony must be by the witness who performed the test)
- Rogers v. Ohio, 143 Ohio St.3d 385 (plain-error review in criminal cases)
- State v. Long, 53 Ohio St.2d 91 (standard for plain error requiring different outcome)
- State v. Johnson, 112 Ohio St.3d 210 (strategy and tactical choice in objections)
- State v. Martin, 20 Ohio App.3d 172 (source quoted re: Thompkins standard)