State v. Ward, 2016 Ohio 5354

Two consecutive November 2014 robberies of delivery drivers in Dayton; Ward was identified by victims and linked to a black Mazda at the scene.
First victim Thompson was robbed at gunpoint near Prescott Ave; Ward was recognized by Thompson as the assailant.
Second victim Daniel reported a gunpoint robbery near Arlene and Prescott; officers traced a suspect to Ward via cellphone data and located a black Mazda.
Ward was interrogated after Miranda waiver; initially denied, then confessed to the second robbery and claimed use of a fake gun; denied the first robbery.
The State charged Ward with two counts of aggravated robbery with firearm specifications; the trial court joined the offenses for trial and sentenced Ward to a total 12 years.
Ward appealed, challenging ineffective assistance of counsel (juror challenge, severance, and defense strategy) and confrontation issues surrounding a 911-recorded statement from the second victim.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was trial counsel ineffective for not challenging a juror for bias?	Ward claims the juror was biased against him.	Ward contends the juror’s sympathies impaired fairness.	No prejudice; juror did not admit personal bias; joinder not shown to prejudice Ward.
Was failure to renew Crim.R. 14 severance motion ineffective assistance?	Ward argues severance was required to protect rights.	Joinder was proper; severance would not have changed outcome.	Joinder proper; no ineffective assistance from not renewing severance.
Did joining the offenses deprive Ward of testifying about one robbery?	Ward wanted to testify about one robbery but not the other.	Joinder did not force testimony; no prejudice.	No prejudice; joinder did not compel testimony-related prejudice.
Did counsel fail to present a complete defense by alibi issues?	Knight alibi for Submarine House was not used for Dragon City.	Confession to second robbery made Knight's testimony counterproductive.	No ineffective assistance; record insufficient to show prejudice.
Did admission of the 911 recording violate confrontation rights?	Recording was testimonial; Confrontation Clause applied.	Statement part of ongoing emergency; non-testimonial.	Recording non-testimonial; Confrontation rights not violated.

State v. Mundt, 115 Ohio St.3d 22 (2007) (bias concerns and ineffective-assistance standards in juror challenges applied)
State v. Pickens, 141 Ohio St.3d 462 (2014) (joinder and prejudice standards for multiple offenses)
State v. Franklin, 62 Ohio St.3d 118 (1991) (severance standard when offenses are joined)
State v. Roberts, 62 Ohio St.2d 170 (1980) (testimony limitations when joinder may affect defenses)
State v. Eicholtz, 2013-Ohio-302 (2d Dist. Clark) (emergency exception for 911 statements; non-testimonial)
Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) (confrontation clause and testimonial statements)
Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 (2006) (emergency-ongoing-incident framework for statements)
Michigan v. Bryant, 562 U.S. 344 (2011) (context-dependent emergency analysis for testimonial nature)