State v. Lee
2017 Ohio 7377
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Victim Jeremiah Anderson and his stepdaughter T.T. arranged to buy iPhones via Craigslist, met sellers at a Colerain address, and were robbed at gunpoint; two assailants fled into nearby woods.
- Within 30 minutes Anderson and T.T. saw a suspect in a nearby park, contacted police, and separately identified Lamont Lee as one of the robbers at a nearby store.
- Police seized two cellphones from Lee; detectives recovered a photo of a green iPhone matching the ad, a photo of an unidentified man holding a handgun, and a Notes entry with rap‑style lyrics about robbery created about two hours before the offense.
- Lee was indicted for aggravated robbery with firearm specifications and robbery; a jury convicted him of aggravated robbery and robbery but acquitted the firearm specification; the court merged counts and sentenced Lee to eight years.
- On appeal Lee challenged admission of the phone photo and note, prosecutorial misconduct, ineffective assistance of counsel, weight/sufficiency of evidence, denial of post‑verdict acquittal, and sentencing errors.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Lee) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of phone photo and note | Evidence was relevant and probative to gun access and motive; admissible under Evid.R. 401/403 | Photo and note lacked probative value, were unduly prejudicial, and were improper other‑acts evidence under Evid.R. 403/404(B) | Court affirmed admission: probative value not substantially outweighed by prejudice; no forfeited objections |
| Prosecutorial misconduct | Prosecutor’s questioning and argument were within bounds and responsive to defense; any errors were harmless | Misleading testimony, leading questions, improper characterization of evidence, and denigration/coaching comments in closing deprived Lee of a fair trial | No plain error shown; most remarks permissible or harmless in context; verdict stands |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel | Trial counsel’s choices were reasonable trial strategy; omissions did not undermine confidence in outcome | Counsel failed to object to key testimony/leading questions, elicited incriminating testimony, failed to move to suppress identification, and did not object to improper closing | Court denied claim under Strickland: counsel’s performance not shown deficient nor prejudicial given evidence and identification circumstances |
| Sufficiency/weight of evidence and motion for acquittal | State proved aggravated robbery elements (deadly weapon displayed or indicated during theft) beyond reasonable doubt; identifications reliable | Conviction against manifest weight; inconsistent verdict (guilty on aggravated robbery but acquitted on firearm spec) requires acquittal | Conviction supported by sufficient evidence; not against manifest weight; inconsistent specification verdict permissible; Crim.R. 29 motion denied |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Powell, 132 Ohio St.3d 233 (2012) (trial court’s evidentiary rulings reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- State v. Obermiller, 147 Ohio St.3d 175 (2016) (appellate standard for disturbing evidentiary rulings)
- State v. Issa, 93 Ohio St.3d 49 (2001) (standards for reviewing trial-court evidentiary rulings)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (1983) (definition of abuse of discretion)
- State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (1991) (sufficiency-of-the-evidence standard)
- State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (1997) (weight-of-the-evidence review standard)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two‑prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- State v. Bradley, 42 Ohio St.3d 136 (1989) (applying Strickland in Ohio)
- State v. Diar, 120 Ohio St.3d 460 (2008) (prosecutorial-misconduct prejudice standard)
- State v. Madison, 64 Ohio St.2d 322 (1980) (tests for due‑process challenge to one‑on‑one show‑up identifications)