State v. Wright, 2011 Ohio 4874

Wright was convicted in Montgomery County Common Pleas of aggravated burglary, robbery, theft, and aggravated menacing based on home invasion and theft of items from the Smiths' residence.
Gene Smith identified Wright in court as one intruder; another intruder was “Duke,” hired to do work at the home.
A photo array was shown to the witnesses; Knox-Little identified Wright, while Gene Smith did not identify from the array.
Wright admitted during processing that “Duke told me they were diamonds” when asked what was taken.
The trial court sentenced Wright to a four-year term for aggravated burglary, a two-year term for robbery, a one-year term for theft, and a 60-day term for aggravated menacing, with some sentences concurrent and others consecutive.
On appeal, Wright challenges the suppression ruling, the rebuttal testimony, the manifest weight of the evidence, and the merger/sentencing procedure for the offenses.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Are the photo array identifications admissible or should they have been suppressed?	Wright contends the array was unnecessarily suggestive and unreliable.	State maintains the array was not unduly suggestive and Knox-Little’s identification was reliable.	Not unduly suggestive; identification findings supported; no suppression warranted.
Did the trial court properly admit rebuttal testimony?	Wright argues rebuttal testimony improperly repeated earlier testimony.	State argues rebuttal addressed alibi contradictions and was within trial court discretion.	No abuse of discretion; rebuttal permissible under rules of evidence.
Is the conviction for aggravated burglary and robbery supported by the weight of the evidence?	Weight of the evidence shows possible misidentification and alibi issues.	Jury credibility determinations should be respected; alibi witnesses credible.	Not contravening the manifest weight; convictions not against the weight of the evidence.
Should aggravated burglary and robbery be merged as allied offenses, with resentencing on the merged count?	The two offenses were based on the same conduct and should merge; theft remains separate.	Maintaining separate convictions could be appropriate given different conduct.	Yes, merge aggravated burglary and robbery; remand for resentencing on merged count; theft and aggravated menacing affirmed.

State v. Murphy, 91 Ohio St.3d 516 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2001) (due process in pretrial identifications; reliability standard; Waddy guidance)
State v. Waddy, 63 Ohio St.3d 424 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1992) (identification reliability; pretrial confrontations)
State v. Davis, 76 Ohio St.3d 107 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1996) (lineup/identification proper procedures; not unduly suggestive)
State v. McNamara, 124 Ohio App.3d 706 (Ohio App. 1997) (mixed standard for suppressing identifications; appellate review of suppression rulings)
State v. McNeill, 83 Ohio St.3d 438 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1998) (rebuttal testimony within discretion; purpose-limited rebuttal)
State v. Hawn, 138 Ohio App.3d 449 (Ohio App. 2000) (rebuttal evidence and prior testimony; admissibility considerations)
State v. Johnson, 128 Ohio St.3d 153 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2010) (merger of allied offenses; conduct-based analysis)
State v. Bridgeman, 2011-Ohio-2680 (Ohio App. 2011) (merger of aggravated burglary and robbery where appropriate; guidance on remand)
State v. Kalish, 120 Ohio St.3d 23 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2008) (two-step sentencing review framework)