State v. Williams
2019 Ohio 2657
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- On Sept. 9, 2016, George Smith was shot outside a Toledo 7‑Eleven; Alexander Williams (appellant), Demarcus Lawhorn, and Davonte Nicholson were indicted; Williams tried with Nicholson.
- Witnesses (the 7‑Eleven clerk Garza and Lawhorn) testified that Garza called Williams after seeing Smith at the store, Williams arrived with Lawhorn and Nicholson, Nicholson fired, they burned the getaway car and fled; Lawhorn and Garza pleaded to reduced charges in exchange for testimony.
- Jury acquitted Williams of aggravated murder but convicted him of the lesser included offense of murder (R.C. 2903.02(A)) based on complicity; sentenced to 15 years to life.
- Williams raised seven assignments of error on appeal, including Batson claim (prosecutor struck African‑American jurors), juror bias (a juror may be related to a witness), ineffective assistance, manifest‑weight sufficiency, jury‑instruction errors (accomplice and aiding/abet), cumulative error, and unlawful imposition of costs without finding ability to pay.
- The Sixth District affirmed all rulings except it vacated the sentencing entry insofar as it ordered Williams to pay costs of supervision, confinement, and appointed counsel without an ability‑to‑pay finding.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Williams) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Batson/peremptory strikes of African‑American jurors | Prosecutor: strike was race‑neutral — juror failed to disclose misdemeanor conviction when asked; records were pulled broadly | Williams: prosecutor used peremptory strikes to remove all Black jurors; pretextual | Denied — court accepted race‑neutral reason; no clear error. |
| Juror bias (juror whose grandson may have been married to witness A.T.) | State: juror disclosed potential link during trial and affirmed impartiality; parties had chance to question and declined | Williams: juror’s undisclosed relationship required removal; plain error/automatic reversal | Denied — no evidence juror failed to answer honestly or that relationship was close enough to show bias; no plain error. |
| Ineffective assistance for not objecting to that juror | State: counsel saw and assessed juror in court; both defense and co‑defense counsel declined to remove juror | Williams: counsel should have objected to an obviously biased juror | Denied — Strickland not met; no showing of actual juror bias or reasonable probability of different outcome. |
| Manifest weight / sufficiency of evidence for complicity murder | State: testimony (Garza, Lawhorn), phone records, video, and actions (rushed to scene, coordinated conduct, destruction of car, flight) support inference Williams aided, encouraged, shared intent to kill | Williams: accomplice testimony unreliable (changed stories); lack of direct proof he encouraged or intended killing | Denied — jury reasonably inferred Williams aided/abetted and shared intent; conviction not against manifest weight. |
| Jury instructions (accomplice caution; ‘mere presence’ instruction) | State: court’s accomplice instruction substantially complied with R.C. 2923.03(D); evidence supported active participation so ‘mere presence’ instruction unnecessary | Williams: R.C. accomplice warning insufficient; court should have instructed mere presence not enough to convict | Denied — accomplice instruction adequate; ‘mere presence’ instruction not warranted on the record. |
| Cumulative error | State: errors were either not found or harmless | Williams: several errors cumulatively deprived him of fair trial | Denied — no multiple harmless errors to aggregate. |
| Imposition of costs (supervision, confinement, appointed counsel) without ability‑to‑pay finding | State: court’s sentencing entry assessed costs | Williams: sentencing court made no ability‑to‑pay finding; he’s incarcerated for life so cannot pay now | Granted in part — appellate court vacated those cost assessments for lack of record showing ability to pay. |
Key Cases Cited
- Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (prosecutor may not use peremptory challenges to exclude jurors solely on account of race)
- McDonough Power Equip., Inc. v. Greenwood, 464 U.S. 548 (a juror’s dishonest answer on voir dire that masks a bias can warrant a new trial)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (two‑prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Wainwright v. Witt, 469 U.S. 412 (trial court has discretion in determining juror impartiality; deference to trial judge)
- State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (Ohio standard for manifest‑weight review)