State v. Jennings
100 N.E.3d 93
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Defendant Herman Jennings was convicted of murder, one count of aggravated robbery, and three counts of robbery (each with repeat violent offender specifications) arising from a December 2013 multi-count indictment; total sentence 22 years to life.
- Incident: two masked assailants attempted to rob two victims; one assailant (Waymone Williams) was shot by a victim and died; Jennings fled with a stolen purse. DNA on gloves and a doo-rag matched Jennings; phone records linked a call to “HERM.”
- Jury acquitted Jennings of aggravated murder and several other counts but convicted on murder (felony-murder theory), aggravated robbery, and additional robbery counts.
- During deliberations a juror (Juror #1) failed to appear Monday after reporting a work conflict; the court replaced her with an alternate and instructed the jury to restart deliberations. Defense objected and moved for mistrial; motion denied.
- Jennings appealed raising multiple assignments of error: improper juror replacement, sufficiency of evidence for felony-murder proximate cause, admissibility of cell‑phone records, Batson challenge denial, jury instruction on confirmation bias / ineffective assistance for failing to request one, and cumulative error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Jennings) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Replacement of juror during deliberations | Trial court acted within discretion under Ohio law; juror unable to perform duty due to work and alternate may be seated without hearing; court complied with Crim.R. 24 by restarting deliberations | Removal was structural error or at least required a hearing/inquiry because juror may have been a holdout; out‑of‑court juror contact and prior jury question suggested coercion or a split | Affirmed — No abuse of discretion; record did not show juror incapacity beyond work conflict and Ohio law does not require evidentiary hearing before replacement |
| Sufficiency of evidence for felony‑murder (proximate cause) | Death was a foreseeable proximate result of participating in an armed aggravated robbery; defendants invite dangerous resistance | Argues victim’s subsequent shots, not the initial defensive shot, caused death so proximate causation to the robbery fails | Affirmed — death was a reasonably foreseeable direct consequence of the armed robbery; evidence legally sufficient |
| Admissibility of cell‑phone records (business records exception) | Records were kept in ordinary course of business; Hood does not bar admission absent Confrontation Clause issue | Argues records were prepared in anticipation of litigation and thus not admissible as business records | Affirmed — business‑records foundation adequate and Hood (Confrontation Clause context) is inapplicable here |
| Batson challenge to prosecutor’s peremptory strike | Prosecutor offered race‑neutral reasons; no prima facie showing of discrimination by defendant | Argues strike was racially motivated | Affirmed — defendant failed to make a prima facie case of discrimination |
| Jury instruction / counsel effectiveness re: "confirmation bias" | No authority requires such an instruction; trial court’s instructions were adequate | Court should have given or counsel should have requested instruction about confirmation bias | Affirmed — no legal basis for required instruction; ineffective‑assistance claim fails |
| Cumulative error | — | Multiple alleged errors cumulatively warrant reversal | Affirmed — no errors found, so no cumulative error relief warranted |
Key Cases Cited
- Woodards v. Cardwell, 430 F.2d 978 (6th Cir.) (standard for exercising judicial discretion in juror matters)
- United States v. Curbelo, 343 F.3d 273 (4th Cir.) (federal treatment of juror removal under Fed. R. Crim. P. 23)
- United States v. Hernandez, 862 F.2d 17 (2d Cir.) (juror removal structural‑error discussion)
- United States v. Brown, 823 F.2d 591 (D.C. Cir.) (juror removal precedent cited by defendant)
- State v. Howard, 42 Ohio St.3d 18 (Ohio 1989) (deadlock/deliberation guidance)
- State v. Hood, 135 Ohio St.3d 137 (Ohio 2012) (cell‑phone records and Confrontation Clause context)
- State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (Ohio 1997) (standard for reviewing sufficiency vs. manifest weight)