State v. Jeter
2021 Ohio 2351
Ohio Ct. App.2021Background
- John Jeter Jr. was indicted for having weapons while under disability, carrying a concealed weapon, discharging a firearm on/near prohibited premises (over a public road), and tampering with evidence; the latter two counts included attendant firearm specifications.
- Events: between 3:00–4:00 a.m. on Oct. 24, 2015, shots were fired near Club 106; shell casings matched a gun found nearby; that gun had one round in chamber and one in magazine.
- Forensic evidence: Jeter’s DNA on the gun trigger and gunshot residue on both his hands; streets across from Club 106 were stipulated public roads; he was stipulated to be under disability to possess firearms.
- Jury convicted Jeter of having weapons while under disability, discharging a firearm on/near prohibited premises with the attendant firearm specification, and tampering with evidence; acquitted of carrying a concealed weapon.
- Sentencing: aggregate 12 years (three consecutive 36-month terms) plus a mandatory consecutive 3-year term for the firearm specification.
- On appeal Jeter argued the firearm specification under R.C. 2941.145 is unconstitutional as applied because possession/use of a firearm is an essential element of the underlying offense; the issue was raised for the first time on appeal but the court exercised discretion to decide it.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether R.C. 2941.145 (firearm specification) is unconstitutional as applied where the underlying offense (discharging a firearm on/over a public road) already requires a firearm | State: statute is constitutional; legislature intended cumulative punishment; specification furthers public safety by deterring gun use in crimes | Jeter: specification punishes an essential element of the underlying crime, producing double punishment; violates due process (strict scrutiny/rational basis) | Court: specification is constitutional as applied; rational-basis review applies and statute survives |
| Whether appellate court should refuse review because Jeter waived the issue by not raising it at trial | State: issue waived under Awan; appellate court need not consider forfeited constitutional claims | Jeter: raised on appeal as constitutional challenge | Court: exercised discretion to review under plain-error/merits doctrine and proceeded to decide issue |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Awan, 22 Ohio St.3d 120 (waiver of constitutional challenges not raised at trial)
- State v. White, 142 Ohio St.3d 277 (General Assembly did not intend firearm specification to apply to certain on-duty police conduct)
- State v. Ford, 128 Ohio St.3d 398 (firearm specifications are sentencing enhancements and need not merge with certain underlying offenses)
- State v. Klembus, 146 Ohio St.3d 84 (sentencing enhancements can be rationally related to public protection)
- Harrold v. Collier, 107 Ohio St.3d 44 (party challenging statute as-applied bears burden to show facts making it unconstitutional)
- Arbino v. Johnson & Johnson, 116 Ohio St.3d 468 (rational-basis standard applicable absent fundamental right or suspect class)