State v. Jordan
2014 Ohio 2857
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- Jordan observed in Target with infant, sisters, niece and friend; group concealed merchandise after hanging items in cart (~45 minutes).
- Niece directed to push cart; group apprehended attempting to leave without paying; Jordan arrested nearby.
- Charges: endangering children (R.C. 2919.22(A)), theft (R.C. 2913.02), obstructing official business (R.C. 2921.31); Complicity to theft added during trial.
- Trial court admitted a hearsay statement via deputy about Jordan's alleged coercion; niece not produced for cross-examination.
- Video and testimony showed Jordan as primary actor directing concealment; state’s evidence supported complicity; while hearsay error occurred, it was harmless.
- Car impounded and inventory searched under store policy; evidence from inventory tied to theft; challenged as improper pretext; search upheld.
- Trial court sua sponte amended the complaint to add complicity instruction; jury received a separate complicity verdict form; no effective amendment found.
- Convictions: child endangering and obstructing official business challenged for sufficiency and weight; child endangering weight deemed against the evidence; obstruction weight not clearly supported; overall judgment affirmed in part, reversed in part, remanded for new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Confrontation clause error by admitting hearsay | State admitted niece’s statement to explain investigation | Jordan’s rights violated; statements testimonial | Harmless error; did not affect outcome |
| Lawfulness of impoundment and inventory search | Search/impound legit under policy | Pretext for evidentiary search; unconstitutional | Not plain error; inventory valid under policy |
| Sufficiency/weight of child endangering conviction | Leaving infant during theft created substantial risk | Evidence insufficient/insufficient causal link | Weight challenged but endangering affirmed; weight found against evidence later on remand |
| Sufficiency/weight of obstructing official business conviction | Jordan’s false statements impeded investigation | Detainment independent of statements; no impediment shown | Sufficient evidence; weight not clearly improper; affirmed (though dissent), part remanded for new trial |
| Judicial amendment of complaint to complicity charge | No de facto amendment; separate verdict form used | Amendment improper if substance changed | Not a de facto amendment; instruction proper and supported by evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (U.S. 2004) (Confrontation Clause; testimonial statements)
- Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (U.S. 2009) (Testimonial documents; admissibility constraints)
- State v. Ricks, 136 Ohio St.3d 356 (2013-Ohio-3712) (Testimonial statements; plain error standard applied)
- State v. Boone, 2013-Ohio-2664 (9th Dist. Summit No. 26104) (Confrontation analysis in Ohio; corroboration)
- State v. Robinson, 58 Ohio St.2d 478 (1979) (Inventory/search validity; impoundment standard)
- State v. Harper, 2014-Ohio-347 (9th Dist. Medina) (Implied inventory search standards; caretaking function)
- State v. Purdue, 2012-Ohio-689 (9th Dist. Summit No. 25766) (Need for evidence of impediment to investigate)
- State v. Long, 53 Ohio St.2d 91 (1978) (Crim.R. 52(B) plain error standard)