State v. Patterson
2018 Ohio 3348
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background:
- Sept. 11, 2016: victim shot in the knee during an attempted robbery in Avondale; victim identified two assailants by nicknames “Marcio” (Peck) and “Reese” (Patterson).
- Police used Facebook photos to identify Peck and Patterson; an arrest warrant issued for Patterson.
- Patterson was arrested four months later while driving a vehicle reported stolen earlier that day; he admitted being at the scene but denied shooting.
- Jury convicted Patterson of felonious assault, having weapons while under a disability (based on a prior juvenile adjudication), and receiving stolen property.
- Trial court admitted a Facebook photograph and recorded jail-phone calls over Patterson’s objections and denied a mistrial based on missing Facebook photos; Patterson received consecutive maximum sentences totaling 15½ years.
- On appeal Patterson raised eight assignments of error (authentication and prejudice of evidence, mistrial, prosecutorial misconduct, jury instructions, ineffective assistance, sufficiency/weight of evidence, sentencing, and use of juvenile adjudication).
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Use of prior juvenile adjudication to prove weapons-under-disability | State: prior juvenile adjudication may be an element of the offense | Patterson: juvenile adjudications lack jury-trial protections so cannot be used to enhance/elementize | Court upheld use (following Ohio Supreme Court ruling) |
| Admissibility/authentication of Facebook photograph | Photo identified by victim and shown by detective; probative of identity and gun possession | Patterson: not properly authenticated and unduly prejudicial under Evid.R. 401/403 | Court found low Evid.R. 901 threshold met and probative value outweighed prejudice; admitted |
| Admissibility of recorded jail calls | Calls traced to Patterson’s inmate number; relevant to state of mind and involvement | Patterson: not authenticated, contains hearsay, and unfairly highlights incarceration | Court held authentication sufficient, calls relevant, hearsay mostly not used for truth of third-party statements; limiting instruction addressed incarceration issue |
| Motion for mistrial (lost Facebook photos) | State: searching for photos was investigation; no bad faith loss | Patterson: missing Facebook photos of Peck could have been exculpatory; tainted ID | Court applied Youngblood/Geeslin standard; no bad faith shown, mistrial denied |
| Prosecutorial misconduct in closing | State: comments were within latitude and relied on evidence (jail calls, complicity law) | Patterson: improper comments about alibi, burden shifting, misstating complicity law | Court found no prejudicial misconduct; objection sustained for one remark and jury instructed |
| Jury instruction on complicity mens rea | State: trial court gave felonious-assault mens rea and explained complicity; no repetition required | Patterson: court failed to instruct complicity mens rea | Court held mens rea was covered in assault instruction and no abuse of discretion |
| Ineffective assistance (failure to move to suppress admission to officer) | State: record does not show Miranda warnings were required/omitted so suppression unlikely | Patterson: counsel deficient for not filing suppression motion regarding admission at station | Court applied Strickland; Patterson failed to show a meritorious motion to suppress, so claim failed |
| Sufficiency/weight of evidence for convictions | State: eyewitness ID, Patterson’s admission, and circumstances supported all convictions | Patterson: disputed presence/responsibility for shooting and knowledge about stolen car | Court found sufficient evidence and that verdicts were not against manifest weight |
| Sentencing (maximum and consecutive terms) | State: court made required findings, considered recidivism and protection of public; entry tracked statutory language | Patterson: court failed to properly consider R.C. 2929.11/12 and failed to orally provide DNA-testing notice | Court found Bonnell compliance (findings present), presumption that sentencing statutes were considered, and DNA notice in entry was sufficient |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Conway, 109 Ohio St.3d 412 (Ohio 2006) (trial court has broad discretion in admitting evidence; reversal only for material prejudice)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (U.S. 1966) (Miranda warning requirements for custodial interrogation)
- Arizona v. Youngblood, 488 U.S. 51 (U.S. 1988) (due-process standard for loss/destruction of potentially useful evidence requires bad faith)
- State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (Ohio 1991) (standard for sufficiency of the evidence review)
- State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (Ohio 1997) (manifest-weight-of-the-evidence review and appellant as thirteenth juror)
- State v. Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d 209 (Ohio 2014) (trial court must make statutory findings for consecutive sentences in the record or entry)