State v. Strange
2019 Ohio 4188
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- Defendant Steven P.W. Strange was indicted on intimidation of a victim (R.C. 2921.04(B)(1)) and trespass in a habitation; charged period June 4–July 3, 2018. He was acquitted of trespass and convicted by jury of intimidation; sentenced to 30 months.
- After an early-June incident in which Strange allegedly banged at a home door, police collected a cigarette from the scene; DNA testing showed both David and Steven’s DNA on it. Steven was arrested June 4.
- While jailed, three recorded phone calls from Steven to family members urged them to “fix that,” to “go take care of that,” to contact “high hitters,” and included the remark, “You want me to come home and f** blow your f** house up.” These calls were played at trial.
- Following the calls, members of Steven’s family (mother, sister, father, sister’s boyfriend) confronted the victims at work and at a store, demanded money, threatened job consequences, and pounded on a car window with a child inside — conduct the victims reported as threatening.
- At trial the defense moved in limine to exclude family texts/calls; objections were raised to witnesses’ descriptions of family threats. The trial court admitted the testimony and the jail-call recordings.
- On appeal Strange argued (1) improper hearsay admission, (2) insufficient evidence / manifest-weight error under State v. Cress’s definition of “unlawful threat,” and (3) prosecutorial misconduct in opening statement. The appellate court affirmed the conviction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of victims’ testimony about family statements/contacts (hearsay) | Statements were admissible as non‑hearsay to show the statements were made and to prove victims’ state of mind/effect on them (relevant to intimidation). | Testimony and officer repetition were hearsay (and double hearsay), prejudicial and should have been excluded. | Admitted: victims’ testimony was non‑hearsay (showing conduct and state of mind). Any cumulative officer testimony was harmless. No abuse of discretion. |
| Sufficiency / manifest weight under R.C. 2921.04(B) and Cress (what counts as an “unlawful threat”) | Jail calls urging family to “fix that,” explicit violent language, and subsequent family conduct provided sufficient evidence that defendant attempted to intimidate victims by unlawful threats or by prompting others to threaten/harm them. | Calls contained no direct threat to the victims and did not constitute an “unlawful threat” under Cress (making of a threat must itself violate established criminal or civil law). Verdict was against the manifest weight. | Affirmed: viewing evidence in State’s favor, jury could infer Steve sought to have family unlawfully threaten or harm victims; recorded threats and ensuing family acts supported conviction. Not against manifest weight. |
| Prosecutorial misconduct for quoting a recorded threat in opening statement | Statement previewed evidence (recorded calls were played at trial); prosecutor had latitude in opening if offered in good faith. | Quoting the alleged “blow your house up” line in opening was inflammatory and unsupported at the time, prejudicing the defendant. | No reversible error: the quoted line was admitted into evidence via recordings; defense did not preserve reversible error and plain‑error review failed. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Cress, 112 Ohio St.3d 72 (Ohio 2006) (holding R.C. 2921.04(B) "unlawful threat" requires that the making of the threat be itself unlawful)
- State v. Maurer, 15 Ohio St.3d 239 (Ohio 1984) (outlining hearsay definition and when out‑of‑court statements are not hearsay)
- State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (Ohio 1997) (standards for manifest‑weight review)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1979) (sufficiency review: whether any rational factfinder could convict when evidence viewed in prosecution's favor)