State v. Martin
2017 Ohio 2794
Ohio Ct. App.2017Background
- Markus Martin and ~15 others confronted Davion Strupe after believing he broke into Martin’s brother’s home; Tristen Belfiore shot and killed Strupe while he was escaping. Witnesses said Martin gave orders during the beating and yelled to Belfiore to shoot.
- Martin was indicted on multiple counts including aggravated murder, murder, kidnapping, burglary, felonious assault, and aggravated riot with multiple firearm specifications; convicted on all counts except aggravated murder and certain firearm specifications.
- The jury also found murder (count three) was proximately caused by offenses charged in separate counts (kidnapping, aggravated burglary, burglary). Martin was sentenced and appealed.
- On appeal Martin raised (1) ineffective assistance of trial counsel for specific failures (eliciting testimony about Belfiore relationship/prison, not objecting to a prison reference, not requesting a Daubert hearing on phone-extraction software) and (2) erroneous admission of text messages (hearsay/Evid.R. 403 unfair prejudice).
- The court reviewed Strickland prejudice/deficiency standards, deemed counsel’s choices tactical or not resulting in prejudice, and held the detective’s phone-extraction testimony was lay testimony not subject to Daubert.
- The court also held the text messages were admissible as admissions and context for admissions and that their probative value was not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice; appeal affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ineffective assistance — cross-examination and eliciting relationship/prison testimony | Counsel’s questioning improperly elicited that Belfiore and Martin were like brothers and that Belfiore said Martin had been in prison, harming defense | Counsel’s questions were tactical to support defense theory (show independence or source of claim); letting prison reference pass was strategic; no prejudice shown | Not ineffective; tactical decisions, strong presumption of reasonable strategy, no reasonable probability of different result |
| Failure to seek Daubert hearing on phone-extraction software | Software reliability should have been tested under Daubert for expert evidence | Detective’s testimony was lay, not subject to Evid.R. 702/Daubert; counsel not ineffective for failing to seek hearing | No Daubert required; counsel not ineffective |
| Admission of text messages (hearsay and Evid.R. 403) | Texts were hearsay and confusing; their prejudicial effect outweighed probative value | Texts were admissions by defendant and admissible to show context; probative value high and corroborated by other evidence (jail call) | Texts admissible as admissions/context; not unfairly prejudicial; trial court did not abuse discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishing two-prong ineffective-assistance test)
- Bradley v. State, 42 Ohio St.3d 136 (standard for deficient performance and prejudice in Ohio)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.2d 217 (abuse of discretion standard)
- Frazier v. Cupp, 73 Ohio St.3d 323 (view challenged evidence in proponent’s favor when weighing Evid.R. 403)
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S. 579 (scientific expert admissibility framework)
- Skatzes v. Ohio, 104 Ohio St.3d 195 (clarifying unfair prejudice under Evid.R. 403)