State v. Pittman, 2021 Ohio 1051

Defendant Christian Pittman was indicted for aggravated murder, two murder counts, aggravated robbery, aggravated burglary, and tampering with evidence; firearm specifications accompanied most counts. A jury convicted him of felony murder (predicate aggravated robbery/and/or burglary), aggravated robbery, aggravated burglary, tampering with evidence, and accompanying firearm specifications; other counts were acquitted.
Incident: on June 5, 2018 Pittman entered an apartment where occupants sold drugs; cash was taken during a confrontation and the victim later was shot and killed outside the building.
Surveillance showed Pittman running from the apartment holding cash in one hand and a gun in the other; the video did not show the victim armed. A witness (M.A.B.) testified the victim did not own a gun. Victim sustained multiple gunshot wounds, including one to the back.
Pittman admitted to bringing a gun, fleeing with cash and a gun, going to a Canton hospital to avoid detection, and giving inconsistent and false statements to police; he only asserted self-defense at trial.
Pittman appealed, raising (1) that his murder conviction was against the manifest weight of the evidence because he acted in self-defense, and (2) that the tampering-with-evidence indictment was defective for failing to identify the evidence allegedly tampered with. The appellate court affirmed.

Issue	State's Argument	Pittman's Argument	Held
Whether murder conviction was against the manifest weight because Pittman acted in self-defense	State argued the evidence disproved self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt: surveillance, witness testimony, multiple shots including one to the back, unrecovered victim weapon, and Pittman’s lies supported guilt	Pittman said theft was complete, victim shot first while Pittman was retreating, and he shot back in self-defense	Court held the conviction was not against the manifest weight; jury could reject Pittman’s self-serving testimony and credit State’s evidence that victim was unarmed and Pittman was the aggressor
Whether tampering indictment was defective for failing to identify the evidence tampered with	State argued the motion to dismiss was untimely, a bill of particulars could have been requested, and prior case law supports sufficiency	Pittman argued the indictment failed to allege the item tampered with and a bill of particulars would have been futile given open-file discovery	Court held the pretrial motion was untimely and denial was not reversible error; even on the merits the indictment wasn’t shown to be prejudicially deficient

State v. Otten, 33 Ohio App.3d 339 (sets forth manifest-weight standard for review)
State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (distinguishes sufficiency and weight of the evidence concepts)
State v. DeHass, 10 Ohio St.2d 230 (credibility determinations are for the trier of fact)
State v. Robbins, 58 Ohio St.2d 74 (self-defense elements described)
State v. Chinn, 85 Ohio St.3d 548 (bill of particulars and prejudice standard)
State v. Horner, 126 Ohio St.3d 466 (Crim.R. 12 timing/forfeiture rules)
Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (abuse of discretion standard)