State v. Willis, 2013 Ohio 2531

Willis was convicted of kidnapping, aggravated burglary, aggravated robbery, and grand theft; sentences totaled 25 years.
Cases CR-559905 and CR-560590 were joined for trial; victims included Slocum and the Sanderfer family.
Evidence included thumbprint matches on Slocum’s trunk and a violent home-invasion sequence.
Willis’s defense sought a trunk-closing reenactment by a defense investigator; court denied.
On appeal, the court reversed, vacated convictions, and remanded for a new trial; issue centered on admission of flight evidence and denial of defense witnesses.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admission of flight evidence admissibility	State argues flight evidence showed consciousness of guilt	Willis contends flight evidence was prejudicial and improper	Flight evidence admissible; instruction not reversible error
Right to present defense—refusal to admit reenactment evidence	State argues no abuse; evidence not in record	Willis argues denial of defense witness deprived due process	Court abused discretion by refusing Bickerstaff testimony; right to present a defense violated
Sufficiency of the evidence after excluding Bickerstaff’s testimony	State contends thumbprints and other evidence suffice	Willis argues lack of evidence tying to all counts beyond thumbprints	Issue moot due to reversal on issue two; nevertheless, evidence viewed in light most favorable could sustain verdicts

State v. Taylor, 78 Ohio St.3d 15 (1997-Ohio-243) (flight admissible to show consciousness of guilt)
State v. Eaton, 19 Ohio St.2d 145 (1969) (flight evidence recognized as consciousness of guilt)
United States v. Dillon, 870 F.2d 1125 (6th Cir. 1989) (supports admissibility of flight evidence)
United States v. Felix-Gutierrez, 940 F.2d 1200 (9th Cir. 1991) (flight/consciousness of guilt considerations)
State v. Valenzuela-Bernal, 458 U.S. 858 (1982) (limits on presenting defense witnesses)