State v. Moorer
2016 Ohio 7679
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Victim Jerome Bable was fatally shot while seated in a parked car; the bullet pierced his aorta causing rapid internal bleeding.
- Witnesses associated the street name "Baby Te" with the shooter; police obtained an Instagram photo and created a photo array that included Moorer.
- Moorer was charged with murder under R.C. 2903.02(A) with a firearm specification and tried before a jury; he was convicted and sentenced to 18 years to life.
- At trial the State sought and the court granted hostile-witness designations for multiple witnesses who then testified inconsistently and claimed impaired memory from drug use; the State impeached them with prior videotaped statements.
- The trial court admitted (1) testimony recounting a post-shooting phone call to the victim’s mother, (2) an Instagram photograph, and (3) video-recorded prior statements used for impeachment.
- Moorer appealed, raising errors about authentication of the phone call and Instagram photo, the hostile-witness rulings and impeachment, and challenges to sufficiency and manifest weight of the evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Moorer) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authentication of telephone-call testimony | Testimony sufficiently showed the call was received on victim’s phone and caller self-identified as "Te" | Call contents were not authenticated under Evid.R. 901(B)(6) | Court: authentication threshold low; testimony showed reasonable likelihood the call was what State claimed; admissible |
| Authentication of Instagram photograph | Photo was properly admitted at trial (no contemporaneous objection) | Photo was unauthenticated under Evid.R. 901 | Court: appellant failed to raise authenticity at trial and did not develop plain-error argument; overruled |
| Hostile-witness designation for G.L. (impeachment under Evid.R. 607) | Witness recanted prior statements and surprised State; impeachment permitted | Designation was improper; testimony should not be impeached | Court: record shows surprise and affirmative damage; designation and impeachment not an abuse of discretion |
| Admission of videotaped prior inconsistent statements (Evid.R. 613(B)) | Prior statements admissible for impeachment; witness given chance to explain | Admission prejudicial beyond impeachment scope | Court: requirements of Evid.R. 613(B) met; admission proper |
| Sufficiency of the evidence to prove Moorer shot Bable | Photo IDs, eyewitness testimony, and investigative links between "Baby Te" and Moorer suffice to prove identity beyond reasonable doubt | Evidence insufficient—no physical evidence and no certain ID of shooter | Court: viewing evidence in State's favor, identity and intent sufficiently supported; conviction sustained |
| Manifest weight of the evidence | Credibility issues expected; inconsistencies do not make verdict against manifest weight | Verdict is against manifest weight given inconsistent, reluctant witnesses and lack of physical evidence | Court: after weighing record, not an exceptional case; conviction not against manifest weight |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Holmes, 30 Ohio St.3d 20 (Ohio 1987) (surprise required before a party may impeach own witness with prior inconsistent statement)
- State v. Duffy, 134 Ohio St. 16 (Ohio 1938) (discussing prior inconsistent-statement impeachment and surprise)
- Ramage v. Central Ohio Emergency Servs., Inc., 64 Ohio St.3d 97 (Ohio 1992) (hostile-witness designation reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (Ohio 1997) (standard for sufficiency of evidence review)
- State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (Ohio 1991) (standard for sufficiency review and inferences for prosecution)
- State v. Thomas, 40 Ohio St.3d 213 (Ohio 1988) (definition of purposefully under R.C. 2901.22)
- State v. Stearns, 7 Ohio App.3d 11 (Ohio Ct. App. 1982) (definition of hostile witness)
- State v. Otten, 33 Ohio App.3d 339 (Ohio Ct. App. 1986) (standard for manifest-weight review)
- State v. Martin, 20 Ohio App.3d 172 (Ohio Ct. App. 1983) (manifest-weight reversal is reserved for exceptional cases)
- State v. Earle, 120 Ohio App.3d 457 (Ohio Ct. App. 1997) (discussing authentication and admissibility issues)