State v. Morgan
2021 Ohio 4443
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2021Background
- Morgan met H.K. after the funeral of her children’s father and began a brief romantic relationship in mid‑August 2020 that H.K. quickly ended.
- After the breakup Morgan allegedly accessed and tampered with H.K.’s Facebook account, posted a fake suicide meme, sent a photo of a gun to H.K., and twice broke into her apartment (basement window). H.K. became fearful and stayed elsewhere.
- In the early morning after H.K. returned to her apartment, a masked man (H.K. later identified Morgan) entered through the basement, stabbed H.K. more than 20 times, struck her with a baseball bat, threatened her children, then fled with her keys; H.K. suffered life‑threatening injuries and required emergency surgery.
- Police located Morgan at another woman’s home; clothing seized had H.K.’s blood; vehicle and security cameras linked a black Dodge Journey to Morgan; cell‑phone extractions showed searches about GPS/tracking, Facebook intrusions, the fake suicide meme, and post‑attack communications.
- A grand jury indicted Morgan on eight counts (attempted murder; three aggravated burglaries; three felonious assaults; menacing by stalking). A jury convicted him on all counts and the trial court imposed an aggregate 31.5–37 year sentence. Morgan appealed raising evidentiary, cumulative‑error, and merger claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of State’s Exhibit 23 (cell‑phone extraction PPT) under Evid.R. 404(B)/403/hearsay | Exhibit 23 is relevant to motive, intent, plan, stalking pattern, and flight; much of it is defendant’s own statements/searches (non‑hearsay) | Exhibit 23 contained irrelevant, prejudicial other‑acts evidence and hearsay; inflammatory photos and searches should be excluded | Court: Admitted Exhibit 23 — relevant to menacing by stalking, motive, intent, plan, and flight; statements/searches were defendant’s own (Evid.R. 801(D)(2)(a)); not unduly prejudicial. No abuse of discretion. |
| Authentication/admissibility of Facebook records (State’s Exhibit 13) | Detective testified he obtained preservation request and search warrant and Facebook records bore defendant’s verified phone, email, username, and references to offenses — sufficient authentication | Records not properly authenticated | Court: Admitted Exhibit 13 — testimony provided sufficient foundation under Evid.R. 901 to let jury assess authenticity. |
| Cumulative error (trial fairness) | Errors in admitting exhibits cumulatively deprived defendant of a fair trial | No reversible evidentiary errors occurred individually or cumulatively | Court: No cumulative error — because no individual evidentiary error was found. |
| Merger of multiple counts under R.C. 2941.25 (allied offenses) | Offenses arose from one continuous animus/attack and should merge (one course of conduct) | Distinct harms and victims/means (knife vs bat; separate aggravated burglary entries); some counts merge among themselves but not with all others | Court: Affirmed trial court’s merger rulings — knife‑related felonious assaults merged with attempted murder (state elected attempted murder); aggravated burglary counts merged with each other but not with other offenses; felonious assault with bat was separate. No merger error. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rigby v. Lake City, 58 Ohio St.3d 269 (Ohio 1991) (trial court has broad discretion on admissibility of evidence)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (Ohio 1983) (defines abuse‑of‑discretion standard)
- State v. Williams, 983 N.E.2d 1278 (Ohio 2012) (limits on other‑acts evidence under Evid.R. 404(B))
- State v. Broom, 40 Ohio St.3d 277 (Ohio 1988) (other‑acts evidence standard construed against admissibility)
- State v. Lowe, 69 Ohio St.3d 527 (Ohio 1994) (distinguish character propensity evidence from identity/plan evidence)
- Sibron v. New York, 392 U.S. 40 (U.S. 1968) (evidence of flight admissible as consciousness of guilt)
- State v. Ruff, 143 Ohio St.3d 114 (Ohio 2015) (R.C. 2941.25 allied‑offense analysis: conduct, animus, import)
- State v. Brown, 100 Ohio St.3d 51 (Ohio 2003) (doctrine of cumulative error)