State v. Shepherd, 2021 Ohio 4230

On December 18, 2019, Jesse Lamar Shepherd allegedly approached Akil Kontar and shot him at point-blank range in the Double Tree Hotel parking area; Kontar survived but is left with left-side paralysis.
Witness Joi White (Kontar’s fiancée) saw the shooting, knew Shepherd from family connections, showed police a Facebook photo identifying him, and later selected Shepherd from a photo array.
Police pursued Shepherd, who crashed his truck and was arrested; two of three witnesses in photo arrays picked Shepherd.
Shepherd was indicted on multiple counts including attempted aggravated murder, aggravated robbery, felonious assault, and failure to comply; most counts carried three-year firearm specifications.
Shepherd moved to suppress the photo-array identifications, arguing suggestiveness and statutory noncompliance; the trial court denied suppression, a jury convicted on all counts, and the court imposed an aggregate 45–50.5 year sentence.
The court sentenced without personally addressing Shepherd for allocution; the State conceded that omission was error on appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the pretrial photo array/eyewitness ID was unduly suggestive and should be suppressed	Photo IDs were reliable; witness knew defendant beforehand; no suggestiveness shown despite minor statutory defects	Photo array allegedly ambiguous (color), Detective Comer’s proximity was suggestive, and the packet lacked the required confidence statement making ID unreliable	Court affirmed denial of suppression: no undue suggestiveness; statutory violations (e.g., missing confidence statement) did not render ID unreliable
Whether the trial court violated Crim.R. 32(A)(1) by failing to permit allocution before sentencing	State conceded the court failed to address defendant personally and thus erred	Court failed to address Shepherd personally or ask if he wished to speak or waive allocution	Error; appellate court sustained this assignment and remanded for limited resentencing to permit allocution

State v. Ojezua, 50 N.E.3d 14 (Ohio 2016) (mixed question of fact and law review for suppression rulings)
State v. Turner, 48 N.E.3d 981 (Ohio 2015) (trial court findings on suppressions are entitled to deference)
State v. Scott, 104 N.E.3d 143 (Ohio 2018) (defendant must show identification procedure was unduly suggestive)
State v. Adams, 45 N.E.3d 127 (Ohio 2015) (photo lineup is unduly suggestive if it steers witness to a suspect independent of honest recollection)
State v. Harmon, 98 N.E.3d 1238 (Ohio 2017) (statutory violations in lineup procedure, standing alone, do not automatically require suppression)
State v. Green, 738 N.E.2d 1208 (Ohio 2000) (allocution is a substantive right and not a mere formality)