State v. South
2017 Ohio 5636
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- In May 2006, Chad South entered a Burton, Geauga County home with a shotgun; he bound and then shot Daniel E. Ott, who later died. The intended target was Daniel C. Ott (a different person) in a murder-for-hire scheme connected to prior criminal networks.
- Investigations initially produced dead ends; years later, prison informant Richard Carter told detectives that South, while incarcerated, admitted to being hired to kill C, entering the house with Mindie Stanifer, discovering the wrong man (E), and shooting him when E confronted him.
- Carter's statements to Detective Levan (2010–2011) and later testimony to Geauga County detectives formed the core of the State's case; additional evidence included a witness who saw a blood-stained South change clothes near the scene and Stanifer/other witnesses who later placed others at the scene.
- South was indicted in 2015 on conspiracy to commit aggravated murder, two counts of aggravated murder (one alleging prior calculation and design; one alleging commission during aggravated burglary), two counts of kidnapping, and firearm specifications. He was tried in April 2016 before the court (bench trial).
- The trial court found South guilty of two lesser-included murder offenses, two kidnapping counts, and firearm specifications, merging sentences to impose an aggregate 28 years to life. South appealed, raising manifest-weight, governmental-misconduct, confrontation/cross-examination, and cumulative-error claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (South) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Manifest weight of evidence / credibility of prison informant Carter | Carter’s testimony (with supporting circumstantial evidence) was credible and proved murder and kidnapping. | Carter’s statements were inconsistent across interviews and trial; reliance on prison informant makes verdict against manifest weight. | Court: Trial court did not lose its way; Carter’s core account was consistent and, with other evidence, supports convictions. |
| 2. Motion to dismiss for governmental misconduct | Investigative steps (including witness interviews, cell search with warrant) were lawful and not so outrageous as to violate due process. | Detectives intimidated/allegedly coerced alibi witnesses and reviewed privileged jail papers, depriving South of a fair trial. | Court: No outrageous conduct shown; no proffer of excluded witnesses’ substance; papers were not privileged or prejudicial. Motion denied. |
| 3. Right to confront / cross-examination limitations | Exclusion of attempts to refresh witness recollection with other informants’ statements was not prejudicial; no proffer -> no reversible error. | Trial court curtailed cross-examination and prevented refreshing witnesses with recordings, violating confrontation rights. | Court: Defense failed to proffer expected responses; no showing of prejudice; no violation warranting reversal. |
| 4. Cumulative error | Errors (if any) were harmless individually and did not accumulate to deprive South of a fair trial. | Multiple rulings and investigative misconduct cumulatively denied a fair trial. | Court: No multiple prejudicial errors shown; cumulative-error claim fails. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (on manifest-weight standard for reversal)
- State v. Martin, 20 Ohio App.3d 172 (standard for granting new trial when verdict is against weight of evidence)
- Rochin v. California, 342 U.S. 165 (due process limits on outrageous government conduct)
- State v. Doran, 5 Ohio St.3d 187 (governmental misconduct and due process inquiry)
- United States v. Mosley, 965 F.2d 906 (requiring particularly egregious government coercion to violate due process)
- State v. Garner, 74 Ohio St.3d 49 (cumulative-error doctrine)