State v. Stallworth
2014 Ohio 4297
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- Stallworth, Jr. fought with his girlfriend at the 306 Lounge; a patron observed him with a gun but could not positively identify him.
- Multiple witnesses testified Stallworth assaulted Wancho in the bar and at least one patron attempting to intervene was knocked out.
- Surveillance video and witness testimony supported that Stallworth sought to retrieve a gun and threaten others after the bar fight.
- An indictment charged Stallworth with firearm possession in liquor premises, having weapons while under disability, assault, trespass, obstructing official business, and related offenses.
- The jury found Stallworth guilty on all counts; the trial court sentenced him to consecutive terms for firearm offenses and trespass, with concurrent terms for assault and obstructing official business.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the firearm possession and related charges were against the manifest weight of the evidence | Stallworth argues the gun was not positively identified and intoxication affected his statements. | State contends the evidence, including witness testimony and security video, supports possession. | No; verdict not against the manifest weight. |
| Whether the trespass conviction was against the manifest weight of the evidence | Schemm could not identify Stallworth as the intruder. | Circumstantial and contextual evidence linked Stallworth to the intruder and scene. | No; evidence supported trespass conviction. |
| Whether evidence of uncharged assaults on Wancho was improperly prejudicial under Evid.R. 403(A) and 404(B) | Evidence of uncharged assaults unfairly prejudiced Stallworth. | Evidence was inextricably intertwined with charged offenses and properly admitted. | No; evidence was admissible as intrinsic/ intertwined and the trial court gave curative guidance. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (Ohio 1997) (manifest weight standard and credibility considerations)
- State v. DeHass, 10 Ohio St.2d 230 (Ohio 1967) (sufficiency and credibility guidance for weights of evidence)
- State v. Sage, 31 Ohio St.3d 173 (Ohio 1987) (abuse of discretion in evidentiary rulings standard)
- State v. Long, 64 Ohio App.3d 615 (Ohio App.3d 1989) (intrinsic/extrinsic acts and admissibility guidance)
- United States v. Siegel, 536 F.3d 306 (4th Cir. 2008) (intrinsic connection of acts; evidentiary admissibility”)
- State v. Plevyak, 11th Dist. Trumbull No. 2013-T-0051, 2014-Ohio-2889 (Ohio 2014) (extrinsic vs intrinsic acts; 404(B) considerations)