State v. Lawson, 2020 Ohio 3004

On Oct. 26, 2017, Ryan Foy and Carrington Sunderland were shot outside 482 S. Richardson Ave.; both were wounded. Foy identified one shooter from Facebook photos as Phillip Lawson.
The night before, Foy had taken a gun from Jessica Davis after an altercation involving Lawson on Facebook; Lawson’s Facebook pictures showed a distinctive Chrysler vehicle that witnesses later recognized.
Police had earlier obtained a warrant (Oct. 24, 2017) to place a CovertTrack GPS device on Lawson’s Chrysler for a narcotics investigation; CovertTrack produced GPS logs showing pings near 482 S. Richardson around the shooting time.
At the bench trial the State admitted CovertTrack GPS data via a notarized custodian affidavit under Evid.R. 902(8)/803(6); Analyst Wong also presented an animated mapping of the pings. Defense objected on hearsay, authentication, and Confrontation Clause grounds.
The trial court found Lawson guilty of two counts of felonious assault (with firearm specs), improper discharge into a habitation, and having weapons under disability; sentenced to 12 years. On appeal Lawson argued (1) Confrontation Clause violation by admission of testimonial GPS hearsay and (2) convictions were against the manifest weight of the evidence.
The court affirmed: it held the trial court erred under the Confrontation Clause in admitting the GPS data without live custodian testimony but deemed the error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, and it rejected the manifest-weight challenge.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility / Confrontation Clause re: CovertTrack GPS data	GPS logs are business records admissible under Evid.R. 803(6)/902(8); affidavit authenticates them; records are non-testimonial so no confrontation issue	GPS data is hearsay, not properly authenticated by affidavit alone, and is testimonial so defendant had right to cross-examine custodian	Trial court’s Evid.R. rulings not an abuse of discretion, but on de novo review GPS records were likely testimonial and admitting them without custodian testimony was error; error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt (court relied on eyewitness ID and other evidence)
Manifest weight of the evidence (convictions)	Victim identification, Facebook photos, security video, and circumstantial evidence (and GPS corroboration) support convictions	Victim Foy was not credible (prior inconsistent statements, criminal record, reluctance to testify, probation arrest)	Appellate court defers to factfinder’s credibility determinations; evidence did not weigh heavily against convictions; convictions affirmed

Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) (Confrontation Clause bars admission of testimonial out-of-court statements unless witness unavailable and defendant had prior opportunity for cross-examination)
Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 (2006) (distinguishes testimonial from non-testimonial statements for Crawford analysis)
Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (2009) (business records may be testimonial when prepared for use at trial; analysts’ reports can implicate Confrontation Clause)
Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 564 U.S. 647 (2011) (surrogate testimony by analyst who did not perform test does not satisfy confrontation when report is testimonial)
Williams v. Illinois, 567 U.S. 50 (2012) (plurality opinion on limits of testimonial analysis for forensic/DNA evidence)
State v. Hood, 135 Ohio St.3d 135 (2012) (cell-site/location records admitted without proper authentication may be testimonial and violate Confrontation Clause)
State v. Maxwell, 139 Ohio St.3d 12 (2014) (autopsy reports not prepar ed primarily for trial are nontestimonial; business-record admission under Evid.R. 803(6) may be permissible)
State v. McKelton, 148 Ohio St.3d 261 (2016) (constitutional issues, including confrontation, reviewed de novo)
State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (1997) (standard for manifest-weight review)