State v. Moon, 2013 Ohio 395

Moon, Simpson, and Norvell were charged with two murders, twelve counts of aggravated robbery with firearm specifications, and one weapon-under-disability count arising from a boot-joint robbery and shootings in November 2010.
Eyewitness identifications occurred via three photo-spreads; the defense moved to suppress such identifications.
Police later conducted a photo-spread identification of Moon with a prisoner (Stephens) in Butler County, which did not testify at trial.
Moon was severed from the co-defendants; he was tried to a jury on all counts and convicted.
On appeal, Moon challenged the suppression ruling and argued the convictions were against the manifest weight of the evidence.
The appellate court held the convictions were not against the manifest weight and the suppression ruling was not error, though the photo-spread did not comply with the blind-administrator requirement.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the photo-spread identification unduly suggestive?	Moon argues non-compliance with R.C. 2933.83 and suggestiveness taint identifications.	Moon contends the procedure was unduly suggestive and unreliable.	Not unduly suggestive; non-compliance did not mandate suppression.
Are Moon's convictions against the manifest weight of the evidence?	The identified witnesses and DNA evidence support guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.	Credibility issues with Dentel and Jones and contested DNA weight undermine guilt.	Convictions affirmed; not the exceptional case weighing heavily against guilt.

Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188 (U.S. Supreme Court 1972) (standard for reliability of eyewitness identifications)
State v. Taylor, 2008-Ohio-6048 (2d Dist. Montgomery 2008) (id procedure and reliability under Biggers framework)
State v. Stevenson, 2012-Ohio-3396 (2d Dist. Montgomery 2012) (statutory noncompliance in eyewitness identification remedies)
State v. Ruff, 2012-Ohio-1910 (1st Dist. Hamilton 2012) (statutory eyewitness ID requirements and suppression remedies)