State v. Shropshire
2016 Ohio 7224
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2016Background
- In 2014 Shropshire was indicted on multiple counts arising from an August 19, 2013 shooting (attempted murder, felonious assault, discharge of a firearm, retaliation) and one count of having weapons while under disability; he elected a jury for most counts and a bench trial for the disability count.
- Victim Dionte Hamilton was shot multiple times; months later he identified Shropshire as one of the shooters and his uncle testified that Hamilton identified “Kytrice” in the hospital immediately after the shooting.
- Police had seized Shropshire’s cell phone during an unrelated traffic stop days before the shooting, obtained a warrant to search it and found firearm photographs geotagged to his residence; after Hamilton’s ID they obtained a warrant to search Shropshire’s home and seized weapons and ammunition.
- At trial the jury acquitted Shropshire on all jury-submitted counts; the trial judge (bench) convicted him of having weapons while under disability and sentenced him to 18 months’ imprisonment.
- Shropshire appealed raising suppression, confrontation/presence, jury-judge communications, hearsay/excited utterance, double jeopardy/collateral estoppel, manifest-weight, and gang-testimony errors.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Shropshire's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Motion to suppress cell phone and house search warrants | Warrants supported by totality: phone seized near a drive-by stop, driver had gun, members of known gang who post crimes; phone photos geotagged to home plus recent ID supported house warrant | Affidavits lacked probable cause/stale information for house warrant and insufficient corroboration for phone warrant | Warrants were supported; no suppression error |
| Court spoke to jury after verdict while defendant absent | Conversation was disclosed on record; parties waived objection; judge stated it did not affect bench verdict | Absence at that off‑record conversation denied right to be present and influenced bench verdict | No plain error; defendant failed to show outcome would differ |
| Admission of victim’s ID to uncle (hearsay) | Statement was an excited utterance: victim in pain, hysterical, immediate aftermath | Statement was not contemporaneous, thus inadmissible hearsay | Statement admissible under Evid.R. 803(2) as excited utterance |
| Bench conviction vs. jury acquittals (double jeopardy/collateral estoppel) | Weapons-under-disability requires only possession; bench may credit evidence differently than jury | Inconsistent guilty verdict violates double jeopardy/collateral estoppel | No double jeopardy problem; different elements permit inconsistent outcomes |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Burnside, 100 Ohio St.3d 152, 797 N.E.2d 71 (standard of review on suppression factual findings)
- Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (probable cause analyzed under totality of the circumstances)
- State v. George, 45 Ohio St.3d 325, 544 N.E.2d 640 (probable-cause review deference to issuing judge)
- State v. Jones, 143 Ohio St.3d 266, 37 N.E.3d 123 (totality-of-circumstances for warrants)
- United States v. Dunn, 284 U.S. 390 (inconsistent jury verdicts and double jeopardy)
- United States v. Powell, 469 U.S. 57 (same: inconsistent verdicts do not automatically implicate double jeopardy)
- State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 678 N.E.2d 541 (manifest-weight standard)
- Harris v. Rivera, 454 U.S. 339 (presumption that judges ignore inadmissible evidence when acting as fact-finders)