State v. Price
2017 Ohio 4167
Ohio Ct. App.2017Background
- On Feb. 15, 2015, Marcus Price and David Quarterman were present when A.H. was shot and killed; both were charged with aggravated murder, murder, and tampering with evidence.
- Quarterman pled to voluntary manslaughter in a plea deal and agreed to testify against Price; Price and Quarterman each gave statements implicating the other as the shooter.
- At trial the jury acquitted Price of aggravated murder and murder but convicted him of tampering with evidence (R.C. 2921.12(A)(1)); the court sentenced Price to three years.
- Facts supporting tampering conviction: after the shooting Price allegedly suggested changing shoes because of footprints, fled to a nearby house where bleach odor was noted, admitted scrubbing his hands with bleach, and left in a third party’s vehicle.
- Price appealed, raising four assignments of error: (1) improperly limited cross-examination of Quarterman about plea-benefit bias, (2) improper impeachment of Price with juvenile arrest history, (3) insufficiency of evidence for tampering conviction, and (4) cumulative error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Price) | Held | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Limiting cross-examination about witness plea benefits | Cross-examination was sufficiently allowed to show witness bias without specific penalty comparisons | Court improperly prevented effective impeachment by barring question about life-without-parole avoided by plea | Court: No abuse of discretion; plea agreement and substantial reduction were revealed; further specifics would unfairly prejudice jury | ||||
| 2. Impeachment with juvenile arrests | State may attack defendant’s testimony when defendant makes affirmative misrepresentations about his lack of police experience | Juvenile record inadmissible to attack credibility under Evid.R. 609(D) | Court: Permissible because Price affirmed no prior arrests/experience and State used juvenile contacts to rebut that assertion | ||||
| 3. Sufficiency of evidence for tampering conviction | Evidence of bleach use, suggestion to change shoes after hearing sirens, and police passing supported inference Price knew an investigation was likely and intended to impair evidence | No proof Price knew an investigation was imminent; changing clothes/washing hands alone insufficient for tampering | Court: Evidence sufficient; jury could infer knowledge of likely investigation and intent to impair evidence | - 4. Cumulative error | Multiple trial errors deprived Price of fair trial | Errors (as identified) prejudiced outcome | Court: No cumulative error — no reversible individual errors established |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Green, 66 Ohio St.3d 141 (scope of cross-examination is trial court discretion)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (abuse of discretion standard)
- State v. Drummond, 111 Ohio St.3d 14 (plea agreements admissible to show bias)
- State v. Straley, 139 Ohio St.3d 339 (tampering requires intent to impair evidence related to likely investigation)
- State v. Barry, 145 Ohio St.3d 354 (cannot impute knowledge of likely investigation merely because the underlying crime is unmistakable)
- State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (sufficiency review standard; all reasonable inferences for prosecution)
- State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (standard for reviewing sufficiency and manifest weight)
- State v. Treesh, 90 Ohio St.3d 460 (review of cross-examination scope for abuse of discretion)