State v. Howard
2018 Ohio 1575
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- Everett D. Howard, Sr. was indicted on three counts of trafficking in cocaine (two fifth-degree, one fourth-degree) based on three controlled buys on Nov. 17, Nov. 19, and Dec. 9, 2015.
- A confidential informant (CI), recruited after a Nov. 3, 2015 search of his home, conducted the buys while wired/recorded; CI testified about the buys and identified the seller by the street name "Little."
- Law enforcement matched the CI’s description to Everett Howard using a photo obtained via police records; agents and video stills were presented at trial.
- A forensic analyst confirmed the seized substances were cocaine; no fingerprint/DNA testing on bags was sought.
- A jury convicted Howard on all counts; trial court sentenced him to consecutive terms totaling 35 months. Howard appealed, raising four assignments of error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether convictions were against manifest weight of the evidence | Evidence including CI testimony, agent observations, and video/stills supported convictions | CI credibility was undermined by motive to cooperate and alleged gaps in observations | Affirmed: jury credibility findings entitled to deference; no miscarriage of justice |
| Whether trial court abused discretion by excluding testimony about potential penalties CI faced from Nov.3 search | Exclusion did not prevent cross-examination about CI’s motives; penalty amounts speculative | Such potential penalties were relevant to CI’s motive/credibility and should be admissible under Evid.R. 608(B) | Affirmed: court did not abuse discretion; potential penalties speculative and not "clearly probative" of truthfulness |
| Whether trial court abused discretion by prohibiting inquiry into punishment imposed for CI’s old convictions | State conceded convictions could be used for impeachment but punishment details properly limited | Punishment for prior convictions is relevant impeachment material and should be permitted | Affirmed: court properly weighed Evid.R. 609/403 factors; exclusion reviewed for plain error and none found |
| Whether sentence was unsupported by the record | Sentencing court considered PSI, evaluations, statutes, and balanced R.C. 2929.12 factors | Court failed to give sufficient weight to mitigating seriousness/recidivism factors | Affirmed: sentencing court considered required factors; appellant did not show record failed to support the sentence |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (Ohio 1997) (standard for manifest-weight review)
- State v. Martin, 20 Ohio App.3d 172 (Ohio Ct. App. 1983) (manifest-weight framework)
- State v. Long, 127 Ohio App.3d 328 (Ohio Ct. App. 1998) (appellate deference to factfinder on witness credibility)
- State v. DeHass, 10 Ohio St.2d 230 (Ohio 1967) (credibility determinations and appellate review)
- State v. Sage, 31 Ohio St.3d 173 (Ohio 1987) (trial court discretion in admission/exclusion of evidence)
- State v. Wright, 48 Ohio St.3d 5 (Ohio 1989) (Evid.R. 609 and trial-court balancing)
- State v. Amburgey, 33 Ohio St.3d 115 (Ohio 1987) (limits and discretion in cross-examination about prior convictions)
- State v. Arnett, 88 Ohio St.3d 208 (Ohio 2000) (no requirement to use specific language to show consideration of R.C. 2929.12 factors)
- State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516 (Ohio 2016) (appellate standard for reviewing felony sentences)