State v. Williams, 2011 Ohio 5483

Benjamin Williams was indicted in Cuyahoga County Common Pleas on counts including aggravated murder (two counts), aggravated robbery (two counts), and discharge of a firearm near prohibited premises; gun specifications were attached to all counts but Count 5 was dismissed pre-trial.
The jury acquitted Counts 1 and 3, found Williams guilty of aggravated murder (Count 2) and aggravated robbery (Count 4), and found no gun specifications proven on Counts 2 and 4.
Sentences imposed September 8, 2010 were life with parole after 30 years on Count 2 and 10 years on Count 4, to run concurrently.
On appeal, Williams challenged sufficiency, weight, jury instruction responses, trial fairness, and other alleged errors.
The appellate court reversed, sustained several assignments of error, and remanded for a new trial, finding cumulative errors deprived Williams of a fair trial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was there substantial evidence to support aggravated murder and aggravated robbery?	Williams argues evidence was insufficient to prove these crimes.	State contends evidence, including witnesses and DNA, supported the convictions.	Sufficiency supported; convictions not merely speculative.
Are Williams’s convictions against the weight of the evidence?	Williams contends the weight favors innocence given credibility issues.	State maintains credible evidence supports guilt beyond reasonable doubt.	Weight of the evidence favored reversal; convictions reversed and new trial ordered.
Did the trial court improperly respond to jury questions or permit a theory not instructed?	Williams argues the court failed to clarify that he must be the shooter to convict.	Court properly referred back to the original instructions.	No reversible error; response did not prejudice Williams.
Did prosecutorial misconduct deprive Williams of a fair trial?	Prosecutor’s statements and questions were improper and prejudicial.	Some challenged remarks were isolated or harmless in light of evidence.	Multiple misconduct instances sustained; cumulatively prejudicial enough to warrant new trial.
Do cumulative trial errors require reversal even if individual errors may be harmless?	Cumulative errors tainted the trial’s outcome.	If errors are harmless individually, cumulative effect may be harmless.	Cumulative error sustained; reversal and remand for new trial.

State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (Ohio 1991) (standard for sufficiency review; rational trier of fact could convict)
State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (Ohio 1997) (test for evidentiary sufficiency; jury verdicts viewed in light most favorable to the state)
State v. Leonard, 104 Ohio St.3d 54 (Ohio 2004) (manifest weight appraisal; exceptional judicial standard for reversal)
State v. DeHass, 10 Ohio St.2d 230 (Ohio 1967) (weight of evidence primarily for the factfinder)
State v. Willard, 144 Ohio App.3d 767 (Ohio 2001) (prosecutorial misconduct closing arguments; fair-trial standard)