State v. Miller, 2012 Ohio 1263

Taylor and Miller were involved in a January 13, 2010 collision with Echols; they were suspected gang members from Lorain's Southside and the collision potentially tied to gang retaliation.
Both were indicted on felonious assault and participating in a criminal gang; Taylor faced an additional receiving stolen property count; Miller faced a third gang count added later.
Cases were joined for trial; jurors convicted Taylor on felonious assault, receiving stolen property, and gang participation; Miller was convicted only of gang participation; both were sentenced to prison terms.
Taylor and Miller challenged various trial rulings, including speedy-trial issues, joinder/severance, admissibility of evidence, expert testimony, and jury instructions.
The court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for limited further proceedings, including a speed-trial-related remand and costs/fees consideration.
Key issues included whether speedy-trial time was properly tolled, whether joinder was prejudicial, whether the indictment was duplicitous, whether certain evidence and expert testimony were admissible, and whether the sentencing scheme complied with law.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Speedy-trial dismissal	Taylor claims violation of R.C. 2945.71 in speedy-trial time.	State delayed unreasonably; tolling events in discovery motions and bond issues were improper.	Speedy-trial time properly tolled; trial within 270 days; assignments overruled.
Joinder and severance	Prejudicial joinder of two defendants and related charges.	Joinder favored; no demonstrated prejudice from concurrent trials.	Joinder not reversible error; no abuse of discretion; severance not required.
Duplicitous indictment and unanimity	Felonious assault count duplicitous; jury unanimity could be compromised.	Unanimity instruction and continuous course-of-conduct theory cured duplicity concerns.	Indictment not duplicitous; unanimity instruction provided; no error requiring reversal.
Admission of evidence and expert testimony	Prior acts, MySpace photos, and gang-expert testimony were prejudicial or unauthenticated.	Evidence was admissible for motive/identity/gang context; proper authentication and curative instructions given.	Admissibility upheld; no reversible error; any error harmless in light of trial record.
Sufficiency of gang-conspiracy proof	Prosecution failed to prove Southside gang primary activity and active participation.	Evidence showed primary activity and active participation through tattoos, associations, and conduct.	Sufficient evidence supported gang convictions; pattern of activity proved under R.C. 2923.41.

State v. Daniels, 169 Ohio St. 87 (Ohio Supreme Court (1959)) (duplicitous charging and unanimity issues, severance guidance)
State v. Drummond, 111 Ohio St.3d 14 (Ohio Supreme Court (2006)) (gang context evidence admissibility and relevance)
State v. Geckler, 2002-Ohio-5031 (Ohio Court of Appeals) (duplicitous/ conjunctive charging interpretation)
State v. Hairston, 2008-Ohio-891 (Ohio Court of Appeals) (active participation in gang defined; graffiti/association evidence)
State v. Ward, 2011-Ohio-518 (Ohio Court of Appeals) (juror-prejudice and misconduct considerations in joint trials)