State v. Young, 101 N.E.3d 1056

Background

Defendant Clifford Young was tried twice for an incident on Jan. 11, 2013 at a Reynoldsburg Red Roof Inn in which the victim (B.B.) was beaten, pistol‑whipped, robbed and suffered significant injuries; jury convicted Young of aggravated robbery (with firearm specification), robbery merged into Count 1, felonious assault (with firearm specification), and having weapons while under disability.
Physical evidence: a cigarette butt recovered from the room had DNA matching Young; fingernail scrapings excluded Young; telephone swab matched the victim.
Victim identified a 614‑441‑2949 number as the caller who arranged the meeting and identified Young in a photo array (administered blind), then in court; Detective testified Young’s photo appeared once but two photos in the array mistakenly depicted the same other person.
The state presented a Detective Howe Cellular Review (analysis based on AT&T records) showing calls between the victim and the target number and tower pings near the crime scene, but the AT&T records did not tie the target number to Young.
Young admitted selling drugs earlier that night at the hotel and smoked a cigarette in the room (offering an explanation for his DNA on the butt), denied committing the assault/robbery; sentenced to 17 years, consecutive to other sentences.

Issues

Issue	State's Argument	Young's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence to prove firearm operability for firearm specifications	Victim’s testimony that Young produced, cocked, and repeatedly struck her with the gun (and threat/brandishing) supports an inference of operability	Operability not proven by direct/scientific evidence	Court: Sufficient — operability can be inferred from brandishing/threat and use to strike victim (Thompkins standard)
Whether a separate firearm specification tied to a second assault existed	State: Only one felonious assault count was charged/was proven	Young: Argued firearm specification related to a second altercation lacked proof	Court: No second assault/count existed; argument moot
Admission of Detective Howe’s Cellular Review (based on AT&T records) — Confrontation Clause/plain error	State: Detective was admitted as an expert and the Cellular Review is admissible; AT&T records were available in discovery and not contested; any error harmless amid other strong evidence	Young: Cellular analysis was unauthenticated testimonial evidence that violated Crawford/Hood and prejudiced him	Court: No plain error; even if error, admission harmless beyond reasonable doubt given overwhelming other evidence (victim ID, DNA, medical injuries)
Prosecutor’s references to the AT&T phone as the “suspect phone” / “suspect home”	State: Accurate description because victim identified that phone as used by her assailant; court repeatedly clarified AT&T records did not link phone to Young	Young: Mischaracterizations misled jury and denied fair trial	Court: Not prejudicial; judge instructed jury on lack of AT&T link and jury presumed to follow instructions
Failure to give R.C. 2933.83(C)(3) jury instruction re: photo‑array noncompliance	State: No proof the Columbus police adopted a contrary procedure; duplication of one non‑suspect photo was an isolated mistake and was explored at trial	Young: Trial court should have instructed jury that it may consider noncompliance in assessing ID reliability	Court: No plain error — insufficient evidence of statutory noncompliance requiring the specific instruction; jury received general ID/credibility instructions
Ineffective assistance for failing to object to Cellular Review testimony and failing to request R.C. 2933.83(C)(3) instruction	State: Counsel had records, subpoenaed AT&T witness, and strategically chose not to object; no reasonable probability of different outcome	Young: Counsel’s omissions were objectively unreasonable and prejudicial	Court: Counsel’s choices were reasonable trial strategy; no prejudice shown — assignments denied

Key Cases Cited

State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (Ohio 1997) (sufficiency test for criminal convictions and inference of firearm operability from brandishing/threat)
State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (Ohio 1991) (standards for sufficiency review)
State v. Hood, 135 Ohio St.3d 137 (Ohio 2012) (unauthenticated cellphone/business records may be testimonial under Confrontation Clause)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two‑prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (U.S. 2004) (testimonial statements and Confrontation Clause rules)
State v. Williams, 6 Ohio St.3d 281 (Ohio 1983) (harmless‑beyond‑reasonable‑doubt standard for constitutional error)
State v. Barnes, 94 Ohio St.3d 21 (Ohio 2002) (plain‑error Crim.R. 52(B) limits and cautions)
State v. Loza, 71 Ohio St.3d 61 (Ohio 1994) (presumption that juries follow court instructions)