State v. Newsome
2012 Ohio 6119
Ohio Ct. App. 9th2012Background
- Defendant-Appellant Joshua Newsome was convicted of robbery under R.C. 2911.02(A)(2) after a two-day jury trial in Putnam County.
- The robbery involved Bob’s Carry Out in Continental, Ohio, with two masked assailants; one was identified as Newsome.
- Evidence showed Newsome and a codefendant dressed in black with dew rags, and a red flashlight associated with the crime.
- Forensic DNA on a dew rag matched Chaffins; DNA on the dew rag found near Newsome’s residence did not exclude Newsome.
- A jailhouse witness testified Chaffins described the robbery; substantial circumstantial evidence linked Newsome to the crime.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Manifest weight of the evidence | State argues evidence supports conviction | Newsome argues verdict against weight of evidence | Conviction not against weight of the evidence |
| Admission of Recker testimony about Chaffins’ statements | State contends statements were non-testimonial and admissible | Newsome contends violations of Confrontation Clause and Bruton rule | Not error; statements non-testimonial and admissible; Bruton does not apply |
| Effective assistance of counsel; suppression and juror challenge | State argues no deficient performance; trial strategy reasonable | Newsome claims suppression motion and juror-for-cause challenge would have changed outcome | No ineffective assistance; motions and voir dire decisions were reasonable |
| Maximum sentence | State asserts maximum term appropriate | Newsome disputes harshness of sentence | Sentence to maximum term affirmed; supported by record |
| Post-release control notification | State contends notification satisfied statutory requirements | Newsome argues inadequate notification | Notifies of post-release control correctly; nine-month sentence issue not required by statute |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (Ohio 2004) (weight of the evidence standard; credibility assessment guidance)
- Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 (U.S. 2006) (Confrontation Clause test for testimonial vs non-testimonial statements)
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (U.S. 2004) (Confrontation Clause and testimonial evidence framework)
- Whorton v. Bockting, 549 U.S. 406 (U.S. 2007) (distinguishing testimonial vs non-testimonial statements)
- Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 (U.S. 1968) (bruton rule limitations about co-defendant confession usage)
- State v. Gilliam, 70 Ohio St.3d 17 (Ohio 1994) (statements against interest admissibility standards)
- State v. Sumlin, 69 Ohio St.3d 105 (Ohio 1994) (cooperation and unavailability considerations for hearsay exceptions)
- State v. Fischer, 128 Ohio St.3d 92 (Ohio 2010) (post-release control advisement requirements and sentencing)