State v. Ward
2012 Ohio 988
Ohio Ct. App.2012Background
- Ward convicted by jury of two counts aggravated trafficking in drugs; sentences 15 months each consecutive.
- Indictment on July 29, 2010 charged two fourth-degree felony counts under R.C. 2925.03(A)(1),(C)(1)(a).
- Two controlled purchases occurred on February 16, 2009 and March 2, 2009 using a confidential informant (CI) who recorded conversations with Ward; CI died after operations.
- Court granted in part Ward’s motion in limine; excluded CI photo-array statements but admitted audio recordings with limiting instruction.
- Trial held April 11–12, 2011; jury returned guilty verdict on both counts on April 12, 2011; judgment sentenced Ward to consecutive 15-month terms on April 18, 2011.
- Ward appeals asserting the audio recordings of the CI and the weight of the evidence were improper as to the convictions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of CI audio recordings as evidence | Ward argues recordings are hearsay and violative of confrontation | State contends recordings establish context and corroborate officer testimony | Recordings not hearsay and do not violate confrontation; admissible with limiting instruction. |
| Convictions against weight of the evidence | Deceased CI could not testify; no direct identification of Ward | Circumstantial evidence and multiple witnesses identify Ward; evidence adequate | Convictions not contrary to manifest weight; substantial circumstantial evidence supports verdict. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Perkins, 2011-Ohio-2705 (Ohio App.3d) (admissibility of CI recordings and confrontation clause)
- State v. Stewart, 2009-Ohio-3411 (Ohio App.3d) (non-hearsay purpose of CI statements in audio recordings)
- State v. Sloan, 2002-Ohio-2669 (Ohio 8th Dist.) (CI statements during drug transactions not hearsay)
- Bourjaily v. United States, 483 U.S. 171 (U.S.) (evidence context and corroboration considerations)
- United States v. Jones, 205 Fed. Appx. 327 (6th Cir. 2006) (voice/identity considerations in CI contexts)
- Turner v. Kentucky, 248 S.W.3d 543 (Ky. 2008) (confrontation and CI evidence considerations)
- Connecticut v. Smith, 289 Conn. 598 (2008) (CI recordings and confrontation principles)