State v. McCrary, 2014 Ohio 1468

Background

On June 19, 2011, 16-year-old Brandon Adkins was shot and killed in a Youngstown driveway; two juveniles (Deandre McCrary, age 15, and Rayshawn Royal, 17) approached, demanded pockets be emptied, and fired multiple shots.
Three eyewitnesses (teens who were on the porch) later identified McCrary and Royal as the shooters; Miranda and Nautica were interviewed within hours and photographed lineups were conducted within two days.
McCrary (appellant) was subject to discretionary juvenile bindover; after a preliminary and amenability hearing (including a psychologist’s report), the juvenile court bound him over to adult court.
In adult court McCrary moved to suppress photographic identifications (challenging lineup procedures); the trial court denied suppression, admitted certain pre-shooting party testimony over objection, and a jury convicted McCrary of aggravated murder, aggravated robbery, and firearm specifications.
Sentenced to an aggregate term of 28 years to life, McCrary appealed raising four issues: juvenile bindover, admissibility of an excited-utterance about a party incident, suppression of photo-lineup IDs, and manifest weight of the evidence.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
1. Juvenile bindover — was bindover an abuse of discretion?	State: factors (victim's death, youth of victim, relationship, firearm used, prior juvenile record/probation violations, maturity, insufficient time for juvenile rehabilitation) supported transfer.	McCrary: court failed to adequately weigh applicable factors, gave only lip-service, and ignored that he never was committed to DYS and had time for rehabilitation before age 21.	Affirmed — juvenile court did not abuse discretion; applicable R.C. 2152.12(D)/(E) factors reasonably supported bindover.
2. Admissibility of excited-utterance about pre-shooting party incident	State: witness’s testimony about a cousin’s excited statement and observed aftermath qualified under Evid.R. 803(2); evidence was relevant to motive/circumstances and not unduly prejudicial.	McCrary: statement was hearsay not satisfying the excited-utterance requirements and was unfairly prejudicial under Evid.R. 402/403 and improper other-acts evidence (404(B)).	Affirmed — trial court reasonably found the declarant had opportunity to observe and that admission was not materially prejudicial in light of strong eyewitness identifications.
3. Suppression of photographic lineup identifications	State: lineups were properly conducted; administrator was at least "blinded"; statute noncompliance (if any) is not automatic suppression and is a factor for court/jury.	McCrary: R.C. 2933.83 procedures not followed (no written reason for not using blind administrator), lineups were suggestive (names mentioned, witnesses knew suspects, fillers might be known), and IDs were unreliable.	Affirmed — court reviewed videos, found no unnecessary suggestiveness; even if statute not strictly followed, suppression not required and IDs were admissible.
4. Manifest weight of the evidence	State: eyewitness testimony, jury view, and other corroborating facts supported guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.	McCrary: identifications unreliable, police investigation incomplete (no ballistics/gunshot-residue testing, no warrants), alternative suspects not fully investigated — verdict against manifest weight.	Affirmed — jury properly credited eyewitnesses; conflicting testimony did not create the exceptional circumstances required to overturn on manifest-weight grounds.

Key Cases Cited

Watson v. State, 47 Ohio St.3d 93 (Ohio 1989) (juvenile court has wide discretion in bindover; totality of circumstances governs)
In re M.P., 124 Ohio St.3d 445 (Ohio 2010) (amenability hearing is individualized and fact-based)
State v. Jones, 135 Ohio St.3d 10 (Ohio 2012) (standards for excited utterance reliability analysis)
State v. Waddy, 63 Ohio St.3d 424 (Ohio 1992) (due-process two-prong test for pretrial identification: suggestiveness and reliability)
Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188 (U.S. 1972) (factors for reliability of eyewitness identification)
State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (Ohio 1997) (standard for manifest-weight review)
Seasons Coal Co. v. Cleveland, 10 Ohio St.3d 77 (Ohio 1984) (appellate deference to factfinder on credibility)
State v. DeHass, 10 Ohio St.2d 230 (Ohio 1967) (factfinder best positioned to judge witness credibility)
State v. Davis, 76 Ohio St.3d 107 (Ohio 1996) (differences among lineup photos do not per se make identification impermissibly suggestive)
State v. Gross, 97 Ohio St.3d 121 (Ohio 2002) (if presentation not unduly suggestive, no need to reach reliability prong)
State v. Mills, 62 Ohio St.3d 357 (Ohio 1992) (on suppression motions trial court weighs credibility and evidence)