State v. Ladson
2016 Ohio 7781
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2016Background
- In January 2015 a third party reported her 9mm handgun stolen after it was left in a car; Marcus Ladson had been a passenger in that car the night of the theft.
- Two months later Ladson was found in a victim’s bedroom after shots were fired into the apartment; a spent casing outside and bullet holes in the window and ceiling were recovered.
- The stolen handgun was found in a clothes hamper near Ladson; gunshot residue was found on both Ladson and the handgun, and ballistics matched the spent casing to that gun.
- The victim initially told her mother and police Ladson fired through the window; at trial the victim recanted or claimed not to recall following a recorded jailhouse call with Ladson.
- A jury convicted Ladson of discharging a firearm into a habitation (with firearm specifications), having a weapon while under disability, receiving stolen property, drug possession, and aggravated menacing; the court imposed consecutive, maximum terms aggregating 16.5 years.
- On appeal Ladson challenged sufficiency and manifest weight of the evidence, the use of the victim’s written statement in deliberations, and the imposition of consecutive sentences.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for convictions | State: forensic and testimonial evidence (ballistics, GSR, casing, stolen gun, opportunity) proved each element beyond a reasonable doubt | Ladson: evidence insufficient because victim recanted and officer made report errors; alternative explanations exist | Affirmed — evidence sufficient when viewed in prosecution's favor; ballistics, GSR, and witness testimony support convictions |
| Manifest weight of the evidence | State: jury verdict supported by overwhelming credible evidence aside from limited inconsistencies | Ladson: jury lost its way given victim’s recantation and officer credibility issues | Affirmed — not an exceptional case warranting reversal; other credible evidence outweighs inconsistencies |
| Use of victim’s prior written statement in deliberations | State: trial court handled evidence appropriately; STATEMENT not admitted into deliberations | Ladson: trial court erred by allowing the jury to consult the victim’s written statement | Overruled — statement was not introduced into evidence or sent to jury; appellant failed to develop legal argument and cite authority |
| Consecutive sentencing challenge | State: trial court made required R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings; findings supported by record | Ladson: trial court abused discretion, failed to properly consider sentencing factors (R.C. 2929.11/2929.12) in imposing consecutive maximum sentences | Affirmed — appellate review limited; R.C. 2929.11/2929.12 are not required checklist for consecutive findings; trial court’s findings supported by record and not clearly and convincingly contrary to law |
Key Cases Cited
- Kalish v. State, 120 Ohio St.3d 23, 896 N.E.2d 124 (Ohio 2008) (standard for appellate review of sentence under Kalish framework cited)
- Marcum v. State, 146 Ohio St.3d 516, 59 N.E.3d 1231 (Ohio 2016) (limits on appellate review of sentencing under R.C. 2953.08)
- Thompkins v. State, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 678 N.E.2d 541 (Ohio 1997) (manifest-weight-of-the-evidence standard)
- Jenks v. State, 61 Ohio St.3d 259, 574 N.E.2d 492 (Ohio 1991) (sufficiency-of-the-evidence standard)