State v. Long, 2018 Ohio 3013

Anthony T. Long was indicted for two counts of aggravated burglary (first-degree felonies) and one count of burglary (second-degree felony) based on a March 6, 2016 home invasion at the Brentwood Apartments where occupants Clara Thomas and her son A.T. were present. One burglary count was dismissed pretrial and counts were renumbered.
Witnesses (neighbors Erica Lansberry and Joseph Forman, neighbor Isaiah Haynes, victims Clara and A.T., and Patrolman Sickles) testified about a group entering the building, a forced entry, a physical altercation with A.T., and Long’s presence in Clara’s bedroom/closet where Clara said he pushed her against a wall.
The jury convicted Long on all counts; the trial court merged the burglary count into aggravated burglary but declined to merge the two aggravated-burglary counts and sentenced Long to concurrent five-year terms on each aggravated-burglary count.
Pretrial, the state moved in limine to limit questioning about uncharged allegations (an alleged sexual assault by A.T. on Long’s daughter); the court partially granted the motion, allowing inquiry only to the extent it bore on Long’s state of mind but prohibiting detailed cross-examination of A.T. about the alleged assault.
Long appealed raising (1) improper limitation on cross-examination (Confrontation/Due Process), (2) manifest-weight challenge to the sufficiency/credibility of evidence, and (3) failure to merge allied offenses (double jeopardy).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Long)	Held
Whether trial court improperly limited cross-examination about uncharged sexual-assault allegations	Restriction was proper because detailed proof of the uncharged allegation was irrelevant and highly prejudicial	Needed to show motive/bias for Clara and A.T.; cross-examination should have been permitted to probe motive	Court: No constitutional violation; limiting scope (not excluding proof of motive) was within trial court discretion; no preserved proffer for specifics, so no error
Whether convictions were against the manifest weight of the evidence	Evidence supported convictions and complicity; credibility/resolution of inconsistencies was for the jury	Testimony was vague, inconsistent, and unreliable; verdict should be reversed	Court: Verdicts were not against manifest weight; jury entitled to assess credibility
Whether the two aggravated-burglary convictions should merge under allied-offenses doctrine	Counts involved separate victims so punishments were permissible	Both aggravated-burglary counts arose from a single trespass and therefore are allied offenses that must merge	Court: Aggravated-burglary counts are allied and must merge; remanded for the state to elect one count for sentencing

State v. Lang, 129 Ohio St.3d 512 (Ohio 2011) (Confrontation Clause and limits on cross-examination)
State v. McKelton, 148 Ohio St.3d 261 (Ohio 2016) (trial court’s latitude to limit cross-examination reviewed for abuse of discretion)
Delaware v. Fensterer, 474 U.S. 15 (U.S. 1985) (Confrontation Clause guarantees opportunity for effective cross-examination, not unlimited cross-examination)
Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673 (U.S. 1986) (analyzing confrontation violations when cross-examination is restricted)
State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (Ohio 1997) (standard for manifest-weight review)
State v. Ruff, 143 Ohio St.3d 114 (Ohio 2015) (allied-offenses framework and multi-factor test for merger)
State v. Whitfield, 124 Ohio St.3d 319 (Ohio 2010) (double jeopardy and remedy when appellate court finds multiple punishments for allied offenses)
State v. Williams, 148 Ohio St.3d 403 (Ohio 2016) (R.C. 2941.25 analysis depends on defendant’s conduct and case facts)