State v. Shine
113 N.E.3d 160
Oh. Ct. App. 8th Dist. Cuyahog...2018Background
- Appellant Douglas C. Shine, Jr. was tried on joined indictments arising from four shootings (Jan. 20, Jan. 24, Feb. 5, and June 4, 2015) that included multiple counts of aggravated murder, murder, attempted murder, felonious assault, firearms specifications, gang and repeat-offender specifications. He pleaded not guilty; some counts (weapons-under-disability) were tried to the court, the rest to a jury.
- State evidence linked Shine to the incidents by eyewitness identifications (several witnesses, including Ladson, Evans, Perkins, and Wright), cell‑tower/location data, recorded jail and phone calls, text messages from co-conspirators, and DNA from shell casings recovered at the barbershop shooting.
- Ladson (an eyewitness to the Feb. 5 barbershop shooting) gave a police statement and wrote a tablet message identifying Shine; Ladson was murdered June 4, 2015. The court admitted Ladson’s statements under forfeiture/804(B)(6) as Shine’s wrongdoing caused Ladson’s unavailability.
- Defense raised numerous evidentiary, confrontation, and procedural claims (joinder, mistrial motions for juror/witness contact, expert qualifications, admission of gruesome photos, chain-of-custody/text-message hearsay, and ineffective assistance of counsel). The jury convicted on most counts and recommended death; the trial court imposed life-without-parole plus additional years.
- On appeal, the court affirmed all convictions and sentences, rejecting claims of prejudicial joinder, mistrial, confrontation clause violation, evidentiary errors, ineffective assistance, insufficient/against-weight challenges, and cumulative error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Shine) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Joinder of indictments | Offenses were part of a common scheme/course; evidence from each would be admissible in separate trials; joinder conserved resources and avoided inconsistent results | Joinder produced undue prejudice given number, complexity, and time span of offenses | Affirmed: no abuse of discretion; Crim.R.8(A) satisfied; no undue prejudice and evidence was simple/direct |
| Mistrial for juror contact (woman speaking to juror’s daughter) | Court’s Remmer inquiry and individual voir dire preserved impartiality; curative instructions adequate | Contact biased jurors and required mistrial | Affirmed: trial court did not abuse discretion; jurors said they could be impartial; no actual prejudice shown |
| Mistrial for witness contact (“Terminator” told Perkins to change testimony) / Brady disclosure | State produced jail calls showing instruction to contact Perkins; contact was disclosed in discovery; Perkins clarified contact did not induce change | Defense claimed contact occurred without prior notice and warranted new trial | Affirmed: court offered remedies, defense declined; no reasonable probability outcome would differ; no Brady violation established |
| Admission of Ladson’s out‑of‑court statements (police statement and tablet note) / Confrontation Clause / Evid.R.804(B)(6) | Statements admissible because Shine forfeited confrontation right by causing Ladson’s unavailability (motive, threats, coordination of texts/visits leading to murder) | Admission violated Confrontation Clause/hearsay rules; insufficient proof Shine caused Ladson’s unavailability | Affirmed: equitable forfeiture doctrine and Evid.R.804(B)(6) apply; trial court did not abuse discretion; tablet note admissible under 403 balancing |
| Qualification/admission of forensic experts (ballistics, mobile forensics) | Analysts were properly qualified by training/experience; testimony addressed methods and extractions; no Daubert hearing required beyond qualification | Methods unreliable or insufficiently vetted; requested Daubert hearing denied | Affirmed: trial court acted within discretion; foundational testimony adequate; comparable authority supports admission |
| Admission of co-conspirator texts (Kennedy) | Texts authenticated via extraction and admitted under Evid.R.801(D)(2)(e) with independent proof of conspiracy | Hearsay; insufficient independent proof of conspiracy | Affirmed: state proved conspiracy elements and texts were admissible as co‑conspirator statements |
| Admission of gruesome crime‑scene and autopsy photos | Photos probative of manner/circumstances of death; non‑cumulative images admissible in capital case | Photographs overly prejudicial and cumulative | Affirmed: trial court did not abuse discretion; probative value outweighed prejudice |
| Flight instruction | Evidence of departure and efforts to avoid detection justified instruction; jury told how to use it | No evidence of flight to avoid apprehension, instruction prejudicial | Affirmed: instruction properly limited and supported by record (departure, hiding, negotiated surrender) |
| Ineffective assistance (venue, DNA expert, alibi, competency challenge) | Trial strategy reasonable (voir dire sufficed for venue; cross‑examination of DNA expert was tactical; alibi issues known to state; witness competency unsupported) | Counsel erred in failing to move/change venue, hire DNA expert, present alibi, or challenge competency of an ID witness | Affirmed: performance not shown deficient nor prejudicial under Strickland |
| Sufficiency/Weight of Evidence re identity and prior calculation & design | Eyewitness IDs, DNA on casings, phone/location data, threats, coordination of texts, and planning support convictions and PCD findings | Evidence unreliable/insufficient to prove identity, PCD, and other elements | Affirmed: evidence sufficient and not against manifest weight; PCD supported by planning, relationship, weapon choice, and execution-style shots |
Key Cases Cited
- Hand v. Ohio, 840 N.E.2d 151 (Ohio 2006) (forfeiture by wrongdoing admits witness statements when defendant killed to prevent testimony)
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (U.S. 2004) (Confrontation Clause bars testimonial hearsay unless witness unavailable and defendant had prior opportunity for cross-examination)
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S. 579 (U.S. 1993) (trial court must ensure relevance and reliability of expert scientific testimony)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-part test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Thompkins v. Ohio, 678 N.E.2d 541 (Ohio 1997) (standard for manifest weight review)
- Lang v. Ohio, 954 N.E.2d 596 (Ohio 2011) (admissibility of gruesome photographs in capital cases requires probative value to outweigh prejudice)
- Craig v. Ohio, 853 N.E.2d 621 (Ohio 2006) (autopsy photos admissible to show manner of death and intent)
- Nitsche v. Ohio, 66 N.E.3d 135 (Ohio 2016) (standards for joinder and abuse-of-discretion review)
- Dean v. Ohio, 54 N.E.3d 80 (Ohio 2015) (joinder favored when Crim.R.8(A) met; conditions for severance)