State v. Lee
2017 Ohio 7377
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Victim Jeremiah Anderson and his stepdaughter T.T. responded to a Craigslist ad to buy iPhones; two men approached, one shoved a gun into Anderson’s groin and demanded money; cash was taken.
- Within 30 minutes Anderson and T.T. saw a suspect in a nearby park; police brought two suspects to a store; Anderson and T.T. identified Lamont Lee as one robber.
- Police seized two cell phones from Lee; Detective Hubbard recovered photos (one of a green iPhone matching the ad and one of an unidentified man holding a gun) and a Notes entry with rap-style lyrics about robbery typed ~2 hours before the offense.
- Lee was indicted for aggravated robbery with firearm specifications and robbery; a jury convicted him of aggravated robbery but acquitted on the firearm specification; the robbery count was merged and Lee was sentenced to eight years.
- On appeal Lee challenged (1) admission of the photo and note, (2) prosecutorial misconduct during examination and closing, (3) ineffective assistance of trial counsel, (4) sufficiency/weight of evidence, (5) denial of post-verdict acquittal, and (6) sentencing errors. The court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Lee) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admission of photo and phone note | Evidence was relevant: photos/notes on Lee’s phone tended to show access to a gun and motive; probative value exceeded prejudice | Photo and note lacked probative value, were unfairly prejudicial and constituted improper other-acts evidence under Evid.R. 403/404(B) | Court upheld admission: evidence had probative value given context and no abuse of discretion; other-acts objection forfeited except for plain error, which was not shown |
| Prosecutorial misconduct (leading questions, denigrating defense, "coaching" claim) | Prosecutor’s conduct largely within permissible bounds; challenged defense credibility warranted response | Prosecutor led witnesses, testified through questions, called evidence “damning,” and improperly suggested counsel coached witnesses, depriving Lee of a fair trial | Most conduct did not constitute reversible error; isolated improper remarks did not produce prejudice given the whole trial and jury instructions; plain-error standard not met |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel (failure to object, eliciting incriminating testimony, no suppression motion) | N/A (appellant’s claim) | Counsel failed to object to testimony about gun, elicited statements on cross, did not move to suppress the identification, and failed to object to closing remarks, cumulatively prejudicing the defense | Court applied Strickland: tactical choices and lack of preserved objections did not establish deficient performance or a reasonable probability of a different outcome; identification suppression motion would not have succeeded |
| Sufficiency/weight of evidence; Crim.R. 29 motion (inconsistent firearm spec acquittal) | N/A (appellant’s claim) | Argues state failed to prove aggravated robbery; inconsistent acquittal on firearm spec invalidates verdict | Court found evidence sufficient and not against manifest weight; inconsistent verdicts (guilty on charge, not guilty on specification) permissible and Crim.R.29 motion denied |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Powell, 971 N.E.2d 865 (Ohio 2012) (trial court discretion on evidence admission)
- State v. Obermiller, 63 N.E.3d 93 (Ohio 2016) (appellate review of evidentiary rulings)
- State v. Issa, 752 N.E.2d 904 (Ohio 2001) (standard for disturbing trial-court evidentiary rulings)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 450 N.E.2d 1140 (Ohio 1983) (abuse of discretion standard)
- State v. Jenks, 574 N.E.2d 492 (Ohio 1991) (sufficiency-of-evidence standard)
- State v. Thompkins, 678 N.E.2d 541 (Ohio 1997) (weight-of-evidence standard)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-prong ineffective-assistance test)
- State v. Bradley, 538 N.E.2d 373 (Ohio 1989) (applying Strickland in Ohio)
- State v. Diar, 900 N.E.2d 565 (Ohio 2008) (prosecutorial-misconduct prejudice test)
- State v. Treesh, 739 N.E.2d 749 (Ohio 2001) (permitted scope of closing argument)
- State v. Davis, 880 N.E.2d 31 (Ohio 2008) (improper denigration of opposing counsel)
- State v. Jackson, 751 N.E.2d 946 (Ohio 2001) (leading questions on direct examination and ineffective-assistance claims)
- State v. Madison, 415 N.E.2d 272 (Ohio 1980) (factors for evaluating show-up identifications)