State v. Underwood, 2011 Ohio 5418

Underwood and his girlfriend Shatto used crack cocaine the night of the incident in a trailer; Underwood left early and returned around 5 a.m.
Shortly before 10 p.m., Wallace was robbed by Underwood in The Men’s Club parking lot, with Underwood displaying a handgun and taking $270.
Wallace identified Underwood as the robber; a canine tracked to Shatto’s trailer and a coat worn by Underwood was found nearby.
Wallace identified Underwood in a photo lineup the following day; Underwood was arrested weeks later and indicted for Aggravated Robbery with a firearm specification.
A jury found Underwood guilty of Aggravated Robbery but not guilty on the firearm specification; he moved for acquittal arguing inconsistent verdicts, which the trial court denied.
On direct appeal, the court held the conviction was not against the manifest weight of the evidence, there was no reversible prosecutorial misconduct, the dispatch records were properly excluded, and the inconsistent-verdict claim lacked merit; the judgment was affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the guilty verdict against the manifest weight of the evidence?	Underwood argues Wallace’s credibility undermines the conviction.	Underwood contends the State’s evidence is insufficient against Wallace’s testimony.	No; the verdict was not against the manifest weight.
Did trial counsel render ineffective assistance?	Underwood asserts counsel failed to object to prosecutorial misconduct.	Underwood argues counsel should have objected to improper arguments.	No; claims fail under Strickland standard.
Should police dispatch records have been admitted as evidence?	Underwood sought admission to challenge location and events.	Dispatch records contain inadmissible hearsay and were properly excluded.	No; trial court did not abuse discretion.
Were the verdicts on the principal charge and firearm specification inconsistent?	Underwood contends inconsistent verdicts require acquittal.	Gun-spec verdicts do not invalidate principal charge verdicts.	No; inconsistent verdict doctrine does not apply to uphold conviction.
Did prosecutorial misconduct occur in closing arguments?	Underwood claims two improper facts were stated and improper accusations were made.	State’s comments were within closing argument and not reversible error.	No; any error was not prejudicial to the outcome.

State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (Ohio 1997) (standard for manifest weight review; deference to jury credibility)
State v. DeHass, 10 Ohio St.2d 230 (Ohio 1967) (credibility and weight questions reserved for finder of fact)
State v. Treesh, 90 Ohio St.3d 460 (Ohio 2001) (prosecutorial discretion and closing argument considerations)
State v. Lott, 51 Ohio St.3d 160 (Ohio 1990) (prosecutorial misconduct review framework (prejudice inquiry))
State v. Perryman, 49 Ohio St.2d 14 (Ohio 1976) (analysis of affirmative-inference issues in trial)
State v. Gardner, 2006-Ohio-1130 (Ohio App.3d 2006) (consistent handling of verdicts and firearm specifications; stare decisis respected)