State v. King

Summary

The Twelfth District Court of Appeals of Ohio affirmed Mychel King's convictions for aggravated murder and an accompanying firearm specification. The court held that police lawfully seized and photographed a shoe found in plain view on King's front porch, upheld the complicity jury instruction, and rejected King's challenge to complicity liability for the firearm specification. The court also concluded that any error in excluding double-hearsay testimony concerning a possible female accomplice was harmless in light of the evidence of King's involvement.

Holdings

1. Picking up and turning over the shoe to photograph its sole did not transform an object already visible from a lawful vantage point into a search under the Fourth Amendment. The trial court properly denied the motion to suppress.
2. The complicity instruction fairly and correctly stated Ohio law and was substantially identical to the complicity statute, Ohio Jury Instructions, and controlling precedent. The trial court therefore committed neither error nor plain error.
3. An accomplice may be sentenced on a firearm specification even if the accomplice was unarmed and did not personally possess the firearm. The trial court properly imposed the additional consecutive three-year term.
4. The trial court did not commit reversible error by excluding the officer's testimony recounting the victim's alleged statement as relayed through the victim's brother. Any error was harmless because overwhelming evidence established King's guilt and the excluded statement would not have negated his liability as an accomplice or principal.

Questions Presented

1. Whether detectives' picking up a shoe lying in plain view on King's front porch, turning it over, and photographing its sole constituted a warrantless search requiring probable cause.
2. Whether the trial court plainly erred by giving the jury a complicity instruction.
3. Whether an unarmed accomplice may be sentenced on a firearm specification when a principal offender used a firearm.
4. Whether the trial court erred by excluding an officer's testimony recounting a victim's statement relayed through the victim's deceased brother, and whether any error was harmless.

Disposition

affirmed