State v. McConnaughey
2021 Ohio 3320
Ohio Ct. App.2021Background
- Realtor Calonda Balleau showed a vacant house; her client Carlos Velasquez parked next to defendant Phillip McConnaughey’s property.
- McConnaughey came onto his porch, used racial slurs, advanced toward Balleau and Velasquez, and yelled threats including “I’ll kill you” and “I’ll crack your head.”
- Balleau called 911, remained near her car until police arrived; both victims testified they feared serious/physical harm based on McConnaughey’s words, demeanor, and proximity.
- Police arrested McConnaughey; body-camera videos of officer interviews were admitted at trial.
- McConnaughey was convicted by a jury of aggravated menacing (as to Balleau) and menacing (as to Velasquez) and appealed raising four assignments of error.
- The First District Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (McConnaughey) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court erred denying motion to exclude victims from courtroom (Evid.R.615 / Marsy’s Law) | Victims may remain under Marsy’s Law and R.C.2930.09; court properly balanced rights and allowed cross-examination | Victim presence prejudiced right to a fair trial; court arbitrarily denied separation request | No abuse of discretion; defendant failed to show particularized prejudice; overruled |
| Whether body-camera recordings admissible as prior consistent statements (Evid.R.801(D)(1)(b)) | Recordings rebut defense implication of recent fabrication after defense impeachment on inconsistencies | Rule inapplicable because defendant never expressly alleged recent fabrication | Admissible: defense cross-examination and opening implied fabrication/improper motive; admission not an abuse |
| Whether convictions were against manifest weight of the evidence | State proved victims’ subjective fear of (serious) physical harm via testimony and circumstances | Victims’ testimony inconsistent and not credible; convictions unsupported | No manifest miscarriage of justice; jury entitled to assess credibility; convictions affirmed |
| Whether defendant was denied right of allocution under Crim.R.32(A) | Court afforded counsel opportunity; defense counsel expressly advised defendant not to speak | Court failed to directly ask defendant if he wished to speak | Error invited by defense counsel’s explicit instruction; no reversible error |
Key Cases Cited
- Cleveland v. Alrefaei, 161 N.E.3d 53 (Ohio 2020) (discusses victim presence under Marsy’s Law and balancing test)
- State v. Clark, 71 Ohio St.3d 466, 644 N.E.2d 331 (Ohio 1994) (standard for abuse of discretion)
- State v. Green, 90 Ohio St.3d 352, 738 N.E.2d 1208 (Ohio 2000) (allocution is defendant’s personal right; courts must comply with Crim.R.32)
- State v. Campbell, 90 Ohio St.3d 320, 738 N.E.2d 1178 (Ohio 2000) (failure to afford allocution requires resentencing unless invited or harmless)
- State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 678 N.E.2d 541 (Ohio 1997) (manifest-weight standard)
- State v. Sage, 31 Ohio St.3d 173, 510 N.E.2d 343 (Ohio 1987) (admission of evidence reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Hal Artz Lincoln-Mercury, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 28 Ohio St.3d 20, 502 N.E.2d 590 (Ohio 1986) (doctrine of invited error)
- State v. Martin, 19 Ohio St.3d 122, 483 N.E.2d 1157 (Ohio 1985) (appellate review requires showing of material prejudice for evidentiary rulings)
- State v. Bryan, 101 Ohio St.3d 272, 804 N.E.2d 433 (Ohio 2004) (deference to jury credibility determinations)