State v. Kelley
2012 Ohio 1095
Ohio Ct. App.2012Background
- Kelley was convicted by a jury of burglary in a Kirklands’ residence; alibi defense presented at trial.
- The burglary occurred on August 1, 2010, around 9:45 a.m., while victims were purportedly away at church.
- Witness Rieske described a tall, dark-skinned man removing a window screen and entering the basement window; she later noted consistency with Kelley’s appearance.
- Police recovered footprints/fingerprints from the window and screen; fingerprint analysis linked Kelley to the scene.
- AFIS process produced multiple candidates; Parsons compared Kelley’s prints to those on file and at the scene, concluding a match.
- Kelley challenged sufficiency/weight of evidence, the trespass element, and the admissibility of hearsay related to fingerprint verification; the court upheld the conviction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the burglary conviction supported by substantial evidence? | Kelley argues lack of likelihood of presence and weak identity evidence. | Kelley contends no proof occupants were present or likely to be present; identity not established beyond reasonable doubt. | No; sufficient evidence supports likely presence, trespass, and identity beyond reasonable doubt. |
| Did the fingerprint verification testimony violate the Confrontation Clause? | Parsons’ testimony that results were verified by Steinmetz violated confrontation. | Defense invited discussion; cross-examination mitigates prejudice; any error harmless. | No plain error; any error harmless given strong overall proof. |
| Did the trial court properly instruct on trespass and identity? | Evidence showed breaking the plane and fingerprints; jury could find trespass and identity. | Arguments regarding alibi and variations in victim testimony undermine accuracy. | Yes; trial court properly instructed and evidence supported conviction. |
| Was there admissible evidence to prove ‘likely to be present’ at the time of offense? | Victims’ church-going pattern suggests occupants could be home around 9:45 a.m. | Presence was not proven; occupants away for church could negate likelihood. | Yes; considering circumstances, occupants were likely present. |
| Did the alibi evidence render the conviction improper? | Alibi testimony undermines identity and presence. | Jury credibility determinations favored State; alibi weak. | No; alibi evidence did not create manifest miscarriage of justice. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Kilby, 50 Ohio St.2d 21 (Ohio St.2d 1977) (establishes 'likely to be present' standard for burglary)
- State v. Fowler, 4 Ohio St.3d 16 (Ohio St.3d 1983) (relevant to occupancy and presence in burglary)
- State v. Green, 18 Ohio App.3d 69 (Ohio App.3d 1984) (defines presence/absence considerations)
- State v. Frock, 2006-Ohio-1254 (Ohio 2006) (applies 'likely to be present' analysis in Clark Co.)
- State v. DeHass, 10 Ohio St.2d 230 (Ohio St.2d 1967) (witness credibility and fact-finder deference)
- State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (Ohio 1991) (standard for sufficiency after reviewing evidence)
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (US 2004) (Confrontation Clause and testimonial statements)
- State v. Syx, 190 Ohio App.3d 845 (2010-Ohio-5880) (confrontation analysis and harmless error)