State v. Jamie
2015 Ohio 3583
Ohio Ct. App.2015Background
- Defendant Major Jamie was indicted for multiple counts after the body of Robert Cherry was found in Cherry’s car on Sept. 15, 2012; autopsy ruled death a homicide by cervical compression (strangulation).
- Physical evidence tied Jamie to the vehicle and victim: Jamie’s DNA on the driver’s headrest and under Cherry’s fingernails; scratch marks on Jamie’s hand/wrist; surveillance video and phone records placed Cherry picking up Jamie and later the victim’s last outgoing activity at 12:43 a.m.
- Victim’s texts and a calendar showed a deteriorating relationship between Cherry and Jamie and indicated possible motive (Cherry had threatened to report Jamie to parole and others).
- Mid-trial the prosecutor disclosed that DNA found on a backseat door handle matched Donald “Tank” Simon (another of Cherry’s boyfriends); defense had been aware of Simon as a potential suspect but argued late disclosure was Brady/Crim.R.16 violation.
- Jury convicted Jamie of kidnapping, murder, and felonious assault; trial court sentenced him to 15 years to life. The court of appeals affirmed on multiple grounds.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Jamie's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Brady/Crim.R.16 nondisclosure of Simon DNA | Disclosure occurred during trial; no Brady violation and no prejudice | Late disclosure of Simon DNA deprived Jamie of exculpatory evidence and fair trial | No Brady violation; trial disclosure and defense awareness meant no due-process violation; no prejudice shown |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel (failure to investigate/seek mistrial) | Defense knew of Simon and used him as alternate suspect; counsel strategically proceeded | Counsel was impaired by late disclosure and should have sought mistrial/continuance | No ineffective assistance; counsel’s strategy was reasonable and aided by the DNA revelation |
| Admission of "other acts" (parole supervision testimony) | Testimony relevant to motive (parole contact by victim) and probative value outweighed prejudice | Testimony implied prior conviction/parole improperly used to show bad character | Admission proper under Evid.R. 404(B); even if error, harmless given strong evidence of guilt |
| Manifest weight challenge to convictions | Physical and circumstantial evidence (DNA, scratches, video, phone records, motive) supported convictions | Evidence was equivocal/circumstantial and insufficient for guilt beyond reasonable doubt | Convictions not against manifest weight; jury did not create miscarriage of justice |
Key Cases Cited
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (prosecution’s suppression of favorable evidence violates due process when material)
- United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97 (1976) (Brady applies to information known to prosecution but unknown to defense)
- State v. Wickline, 50 Ohio St.3d 114 (1990) (no Brady violation where alleged exculpatory records are presented at trial)
- State v. Parson, 6 Ohio St.3d 442 (1983) (trial court has discretion to sanction nondisclosure under Crim.R. 16)
- State v. Drummond, 111 Ohio St.3d 14 (2006) (Strickland standard applied for ineffective-assistance claims)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- State v. Williams, 134 Ohio St.3d 521 (2012) (framework for admitting other-acts evidence under Evid.R. 404(B))
- State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (1991) (circumstantial evidence alone can support conviction)
- State v. Nicely, 39 Ohio St.3d 147 (1988) (physical evidence not required where circumstantial evidence suffices)
- State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (1997) (standard for reversing on manifest-weight grounds)
- State v. Otten, 33 Ohio App.3d 339 (9th Dist. 1986) (procedure for manifest-weight review)