State v. Simpson, 2013 Ohio 1072

Simpson was convicted in 2012 by bench trial on twelve counts of aggravated robbery with firearm specs and two counts of murder with firearm specs, plus a weapons-under-disability charge; sentences run consecutive and concurrent as specified, total 33 years to life.
The syndicate occurred during an armed robbery at Hank’s, a liquor establishment in Hank’s basement, resulting in the deaths of Earnest Sanders and Marva Carter.
Simpson moved to suppress pretrial identification identifications and a custodial confession; suppression hearing was held.
Key evidence included photo-spread identifications by multiple witnesses, Simpson’s DNA on two Bud Ice bottles, and eyewitness testimonies of the robbery and shootings.
At suppression, the court found the lineups not unduly suggestive and relied on nonblind administration not violating due process; Miranda warnings were deemed valid and timely.
On appeal, Simpson challenges the identification procedure, the Miranda warnings, and the sufficiency/weight of the evidence supporting murder and aggravated robbery convictions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Identification suppression viability	Simpson argues identification was unreliable due to nonblind administration and statutory noncompliance.	Simpson contends noncompliance taints reliability; the court failed to instruct adequately on unreliability.	Not meritorious; procedure not unduly suggestive; reliability adequate; trial court affirmed.
Miranda warnings adequacy	Manner of interrogation rendered waiver involuntary; warnings stale.	Miranda warnings were improper or stale; statements should be suppressed.	No reversible error; warnings proximate and voluntary under totality of circumstances.
Sufficiency/weight of the evidence	Evidence inconsistently presented by Dentel, Peek, and Dillard undermines conviction.	Inconsistencies did not render verdicts against weight or sufficiency; eyewitness identifications credible.	Evidence supports convictions; not weightily against the verdict.

State v. Moon, 2013-Ohio-395 (2d Dist. Montgomery No. 25061, 2013) (noncompliance with R.C. 2933.83 does not automatically require suppression)
State v. Taylor, 2008-Ohio-6048 (2d Dist. Montgomery No. 22232, 2008) (reliability determined by totality of circumstances; nonunduly suggestive rule)
State v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188 (1972) (Biggers factors for reliability of eyewitness identification)
State v. Parrish, 2006-Ohio-2677 (2d Dist. Montgomery No. 21091, 2006) (weight vs sufficiency; pretrial identification by witnesses)
State v. Hurt, 2006-Ohio-990 (Montgomery App.) (appellate deference to trial court credibility findings)
State v. Purser, 2007-Ohio-192 (2d Dist. Greene No. 2006 CA 14, 2007) (Ohio Eyewitness identification standards and suppression framework)