State v. Jones
2012 Ohio 2744
Ohio Ct. App.2012Background
- Davis was shot in the leg by a man identified as Jones; victim later identified cap near scene and Jones’s DNA was found on it.
- Davis provided Manny's name and Manny’s address to medics and police; he later identified Jones from a photo array.
- Police located Manny’s address nearby; a woman at the home identified Manny as Immanuel Jones but said he was not home.
- A knit cap found at the scene contained DNA that could not exclude Jones as a contributor; Davis testified the cap matched Jones who wore it.
- Jones’s cell phone was seized; call and text records showed Jones interacting with a woman who provided a ride and that his evening involved leaving home after 11:59 p.m.; he changed clothes later that night.
- A grand jury indicted Jones on felonious assault with a firearm specification and having weapons while under disability; the aggravated trespass charge was dismissed; a jury convicted on the remaining counts and the firearm specification, sentencing Jones to eight years.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Manifest weight of the evidence about identity | Jones contends the evidence fails to prove identity beyond a reasonable doubt | Jones argues the jury lost its way on who shot Davis | Unpersuasive; substantial, consistent evidence supports identity. |
| Effectiveness of counsel re: suppression and DNA expert | Jones argues counsel failed to suppress identification and to hire a DNA expert | Jones argues such omissions were prejudicial | Unpersuasive; no reasonable probability of different outcome; cross-examination and existing DNA testimony adequate. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Otten, 33 Ohio App.3d 339 (9th Dist.1986) (weights review and thirteenth juror concept in manifest weight review)
- State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (1997) (standard for weight of the evidence; appellate deference to factfinder)
- State v. Martin, 20 Ohio App.3d 172 (1st Dist.1983) (exceptional case standard for weight of evidence reversal)
- State v. Madrigal, 87 Ohio St.3d 378 (2000) (failure to file suppression motion not per se ineffective assistance)
- Kimmelman v. Morrison, 477 U.S. 365 (1986) (ineffective assistance framework; prejudice inquiry)
- State v. Downing, 2004-Ohio-5952 (9th Dist.) (strategic choice not to file suppression; prejudice analysis)
- State v. Malone, 2011-Ohio-2445 (9th Dist.) (prejudice requires probability of acquittal absent the excluded evidence)
- State v. Reives-Bey, 2011-Ohio-1778 (9th Dist.) (identification admissibility challenge preservation/forfeiture principles)
- State v. Nicholas, 66 Ohio St.3d 431 (1993) (standard for ineffective assistance and trial strategy)