State v. Howard, 2024 Ohio 1409

Wesley A. Howard was convicted after a jury trial on multiple counts of aggravated drug trafficking, drug possession, and engaging in a pattern of corrupt activity, stemming from a series of controlled drug buys using confidential informants in late 2020.
Howard's prosecution involved evidence including audio and video surveillance, informant testimony, and physical evidence (drug paraphernalia, cash, surveillance equipment) seized from his home.
A mistrial occurred after a medical emergency, and Howard was then retried and convicted; three vehicles were also ordered forfeited.
Howard appealed, raising four main issues related to confrontation rights (joinder of trials), sufficiency and weight of the evidence, and ineffective assistance of counsel regarding his ability to pay mandatory fines.
The trial court denied Howard’s original motion to sever his trial from his co-defendant (Hertzler); Howard did not renew this motion after the mistrial.

Issue	Howard's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Denial of Motion to Sever/Confrontation Clause	Trial should have been severed due to inability to cross-examine Hertzler on incriminating statements; Bruton violation	Statements were not testimonial; no confrontation clause violation, and Howard did not renew motion for severance (only plain error review)	Not testimonial, no Bruton or Sixth Amendment violation; no error in denying severance
Sufficiency of Evidence (Counts 2, 4, 6)	Evidence was too circumstantial; identification as a participant not proven beyond a reasonable doubt	Circumstantial evidence sufficed; facts supported inference Howard was "the dude" supplying drugs	Sufficient evidence existed; convictions affirmed
Manifest Weight of the Evidence	Verdict was against manifest weight; jury improperly stacked inferences	Jury properly weighed evidence and credibility	Not against manifest weight; verdicts stand
Ineffective Assistance (Failure to File Indigency Affidavit)	Counsel failed to argue Howard’s inability to pay fines, prejudicing him	No proof Howard was indigent; asset/vehicle ownership and private counsel undermine claim	No deficient performance or prejudice; ineffective assistance claim rejected

State v. Bruton, 391 U.S. 123 (lays out confrontation clause violations arising from joint trials and confession evidence)
State v. Crawford, 541 U.S. 36 (defines "testimonial" for Sixth Amendment purposes)
State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (sets sufficiency of evidence standard)
State v. Strickland, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
State v. Torres, 66 Ohio St.2d 340 (addresses trial court discretion in motion to sever)