State v. Hurt, 2024 Ohio 3115

Dylan Hurt was convicted of aggravated murder and attempted murder in connection with two separate drive-by shootings in Cincinnati’s South Cumminsville neighborhood in April 2020.
The shootings involved different victims and locations: one on Llewellyn Avenue (victims A.O. and J.G.) and another resulting in the death of David Norwood.
Circumstantial evidence tied Hurt to the crimes, including rental and surveillance video of a distinctive Jeep, cell phone records placing Hurt and codefendant Baltimore near both shootings, and ballistics matching shell casings.
At trial, Hurt attempted to subpoena his codefendant Baltimore, who had authored a purported confession but declined to testify, invoking the Fifth Amendment through counsel.
Hurt was removed from the courtroom during parts of the trial after refusing to provide clear answers about his willingness to participate; the trial court continued in his absence.
On appeal, Hurt challenged evidentiary sufficiency, joinder of offenses, the quashed subpoena, his removal from trial, and alleged ineffective assistance of counsel.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Quashing Baltimore’s Subpoena	Subpoena properly quashed due to valid privilege claim; no non-incriminating questions proffered	Court erred by not holding hearing and not questioning Baltimore personally	Subpoena properly quashed; valid assertion of Fifth Amendment privilege justified without hearing
Removal from Courtroom	Hurt voluntarily absent and waived right to be present after being repeatedly asked	Removal violated right to confrontation; absence not voluntary	No abuse of discretion—removal justified based on Hurt’s conduct and failure to respond
Failure to Sever Counts	Joinder appropriate where evidence is simple and distinct for each offense	Joinder of cases too prejudicial given complexity and risk of jury confusion	No error; evidence was simple and direct, so no prejudice from joinder
Sufficiency and Weight of Evidence	Substantial circumstantial evidence supported each conviction element	Insufficient evidence; no direct identification, victim non-cooperation, only circumstantial evidence	Convictions affirmed; circumstantial evidence adequate and jury’s verdict not against manifest weight

State v. Kirk, 72 Ohio St.3d 564 (Ohio 1995) (no right to call witness merely to have them invoke Fifth Amendment before jury)
State v. Williams, 6 Ohio St.3d 281 (Ohio 1983) (right to be present at trial rooted in Ohio and U.S. Constitutions)
State v. Johnson, 93 Ohio St.3d 240 (Ohio 2001) (aiding and abetting requires intent inferred from conduct and context)
State v. Herring, 94 Ohio St.3d 246 (Ohio 2002) (defendant may be convicted of complicity even if not charged as such)
State v. Torres, 66 Ohio St.2d 340 (Ohio 1981) (joinder and severance of offenses left to trial court discretion)