State v. Price
2016 Ohio 4670
Ohio Ct. App.2016Background
- On March 22, 2014, Joseph Campbell was shot at a private party; Campbell initially identified Christopher Crenshaw as the shooter but later said Melvin Prince might have shot him; Crenshaw later told police Prince shot Campbell and that Prince confessed.
- A grand jury indicted Prince and Crenshaw for felonious assault with a firearm specification; their cases were severed and Prince proceeded (after waiving counsel) with standby counsel.
- Prince moved for a bill of particulars late (months after arraignment); the trial court denied the motion. At a pretrial hearing the prosecutor stated the State’s theory included complicity.
- At trial the State requested a complicity jury instruction; Prince objected. The jury convicted Prince of felonious assault but acquitted on the firearm specification. Prince received a seven-year prison term.
- Prince appealed, raising (1) denial of a bill of particulars (due process), (2) exclusion of proposed character witnesses, and (3) that imposing a no-contact order alongside a prison term was void under State v. Anderson.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Prince) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Trial court refusal to order a bill of particulars | State: denial was permissible where demand was untimely and particulars unnecessary given discovery; State had put defense on notice of complicity theory | Prince: denial prejudiced his defense because indictment charged him only as principal and he lacked notice he had to defend against complicity | Court: Overruled. Demand was untimely but, in any event, Prince had actual and constructive notice of complicity and failed to show actual prejudice from lack of a bill of particulars |
| 2. Exclusion of character witnesses | State: character evidence limited by Evid.R. 404; prosecution may rebut if defense opens door | Prince: exclusion violated his right to present witnesses and deprived him of defense | Court: Overruled. Trial court acted within discretion; Prince failed to proffer who witnesses were or what testimony they'd give and thus showed no prejudice |
| 3. Imposition of no-contact order along with prison term | State: conceded error in imposing no-contact order in addition to prison term under Anderson | Prince: no-contact order is void when court imposes prison term for offenses for which community control is alternative | Court: Sustained. Under State v. Anderson a court cannot impose both a prison term and a no-contact order for the same offense; no-contact order vacated and matter remanded |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Chinn, 85 Ohio St.3d 548 (1999) (failure to provide timely bill of particulars can be clear error; defendant must show prejudice)
- State v. Herring, 94 Ohio St.3d 246 (2002) (R.C. 2923.03(F) provides constructive notice that complicity instruction may be given even when indictment names a principal)
- State v. Anderson, 143 Ohio St.3d 173 (2015) (as a general rule a court must impose either a prison term or community control; cannot impose both a prison term and a no-contact order for the same offense)
- United States v. Valenzuela-Bernal, 458 U.S. 858 (1982) (to show violation of compulsory-process rights defendant must show excluded testimony would be material and favorable)
- State v. Perryman, 49 Ohio St.2d 14 (1976) (specifications are considered after and in addition to guilt on the principal charge)