State v. Smith, 2020 Ohio 649

Background

On Feb. 19, 2017, Trevor Tiemann went to sell a handgun; Ronnel “Irv” Clay took the gun and fled; Edward Smith was present nearby and later shot and killed Tiemann with the stolen handgun. No second gun was recovered.
Surveillance video showed multiple pre-robbery interactions among Smith, Irv, and others; video also showed Smith jump in front of Tiemann’s motorcycle during the chase and later possessing the stolen gun.
Smith claimed he was an innocent bystander who found the gun and acted in self‑defense; the State argued Smith aided and abetted an aggravated robbery and therefore was guilty of aggravated murder under the felony‑murder statute.
A jury convicted Smith of aggravated murder (with a gun specification) and having a weapon while under a disability; after merger, the court imposed 33 years to life plus 36 months consecutively (36 years to life aggregate).
On appeal Smith raised five assignments of error condensed here into four issues: exclusion of victim‑tattoo/t‑shirt evidence (motion in limine), exercise/sequence of peremptory challenges and limits on voir dire, sufficiency/weight of evidence (complicity/felony murder vs. self‑defense), and sentencing/allocution/consecutive findings.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
1. Motion in limine excluding victim’s tattoos and t‑shirt	Exclusion was proper because tattoos/t‑shirt were irrelevant and highly prejudicial since Smith could not have seen them at the time	Evidence was relevant to aggressor/state of mind and to support self‑defense; exclusion was error	Court affirmed exclusion (no preserved proffer) and held tattoos/t‑shirt were not material to whether Smith created the situation given robbery/complicity was central
2. Peremptory challenges & limited voir dire	State followed Crim.R. 24(E); court properly enforced waiver when challenges were not exercised in turn	Court’s procedure forced simultaneous/untimely waiver and curtailed defense voir dire	Court held defense waived the fourth peremptory challenge under Crim.R. 24(E); no error in limiting questioning of juror 24
3. Sufficiency and weight of the evidence for aggravated murder (complicity)	State: surveillance, witness testimony, Smith’s possession of stolen gun, and conduct before/after show he aided and abetted aggravated robbery → supports felony‑murder aggravated murder	Smith: video lacks proof of plan/intent; he was an innocent bystander acting in self‑defense	Court found evidence sufficient and not against manifest weight—jury could infer complicity from presence, conduct, companionship, and possession of robbery proceeds
4. Sentencing: allocution and consecutive terms	State: sentence lawful; trial court made required consecutive‑sentence findings and incorporated them in the entry	Smith: trial court misread/misused allocution to justify maximum/consecutive sentence	Court declined substantive review of aggravated‑murder term (R.C. limitation) but upheld consecutive term because required R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings were made on the record and in the entry

Key Cases Cited

State v. Grubb, 28 Ohio St.3d 199 (motion in limine is interlocutory; error not preserved absent proper proffer/objection)
State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (standard for sufficiency review)
State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (weight‑of‑the‑evidence review; court as thirteenth juror)
State v. Johnson, 93 Ohio St.3d 240 (aider/abettor standard—presence/companionship/conduct may show intent)
State v. Nemeth, 82 Ohio St.3d 202 (relevance of evidence to affirmative defenses)
State v. Barnes, 94 Ohio St.3d 21 (defendant not at fault in creating situation as element of self‑defense)
State v. Porterfield, 106 Ohio St.3d 5 (statutory bar on appellate review of aggravated‑murder sentences)
State v. Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d 209 (consecutive‑sentence findings requirement and incorporation into entry)
State v. Lovelace, 137 Ohio App.3d 206 (appellate courts cannot evaluate admissibility of unproffered exhibits)