State v. Savage
2018 Ohio 5125
Oh. Ct. App. 7th Dist. Mahonin...2018Background
- Leonard A. Savage Jr. was tried separately on an indictment charging aggravated murder (complicity) and three counts of attempted murder for a November 14, 2015 shooting that killed Thomas Owens and wounded three others; jury convicted and court sentenced to 25 years to life plus concurrent terms.
- Surveillance video placed Savage and co-defendants at the bar immediately before the shooting; video showed co-defendant with a gun, Savage returning from a van wearing gloves, and the three running toward the victims’ vehicle.
- Ballistics and scene evidence: .40 and .45 shell casings recovered (two different guns); bullets recovered from the decedent were .40 and .45 calibers.
- Prosecution presented an incarcerated witness who testified Savage confessed in jail and threatened cooperating witnesses; two out-of-court video statements (a teen who waited in Savage’s van and a female eyewitness) were played after the trial court applied the forfeiture-by-wrongdoing exception because both refused to testify at trial.
- Defense raised: ineffective assistance for defense counsel’s opening promise that Savage would testify but he later declined; challenge to removal for cause of a juror; objection to curative instruction after an evidentiary objection on re-cross; manifest-weight challenge; and confrontation-clause challenge to admission of unavailable witnesses’ testimonial statements.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Savage) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Ineffective assistance for promising defendant would testify in opening but later not calling him | Counsel’s statement was a tactical matter; record does not show deficient performance or prejudice | Promise created an expectation; counsel should not promise a defendant will testify and then not fulfill it | No ineffective assistance: no record showing deficiency; jury instructed not to consider silence; no prejudice shown |
| 2. Removal of a prospective juror for cause | Court acted within discretion after juror said he could not be fair/impartial and might refuse to convict even if prosecution proved case | Removal was improper because juror said "I am not sure," not clearly biased; defense should have been allowed further questioning | Affirmed: court reasonably found juror could not be impartial and did not abuse discretion |
| 3. Curative instruction allegedly biased the jury by endorsing witness source | Curative instruction was justified to cure baseless insinuation that prosecutor "fed" witness information | Instruction overstated and effectively bolstered prosecution witness, showing judicial bias | No judicial bias: instruction cured improper question; jurors later instructed they judge credibility; not reversible error |
| 4. Manifest-weight of the evidence | State: cumulative direct and circumstantial evidence (video, ballistics, confession to inmate, witnesses) supported conviction | Savage: inmate could be unreliable, surveillance shows only proximity, some forensic discrepancies, GSR on victims | Affirmed: evidence and reasonable inferences support verdict; not an exceptional case warranting reversal |
| 5. Forfeiture-by-wrongdoing / Confrontation Clause (admission of testimonial video statements) | State: by preponderance, defendant participated in procuring witnesses’ unavailability (threats, firebombing, social-media intimidation, statements that witnesses were targeted) | Savage: he was jailed and did not personally contact/ intimidate witnesses; insufficient proof he procured witnesses’ unavailability | Affirmed: trial court reasonably found by preponderance Savage participated in procuring unavailability (including via intermediaries); exception applied and videotaped statements admitted |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective assistance two‑part test)
- State v. Bradley, 42 Ohio St.3d 136 (Ohio standard for ineffective assistance review and deference to trial strategy)
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (testimonial hearsay and Confrontation Clause principles)
- Giles v. California, 554 U.S. 353 (intent requirement and common‑law basis for forfeiture by wrongdoing)
- State v. Hand, 107 Ohio St.3d 378 (preponderance standard for proving forfeiture by wrongdoing under Ohio law)
- State v. McKelton, 148 Ohio St.3d 261 (Evid.R. 804(B)(6) and Confrontation Clause evidentiary approach)