State v. Murray

2025 Ohio 1485 · Court of Appeals of Ohio, Second Appellate District · April 25, 2025 · No. 30254

Summary

This Ohio appellate court decision reviews a murder conviction and addresses three assignments of error regarding the defense of another, voluntary manslaughter, and a witness testifying while wearing a mask. The court affirmed the conviction in part, finding the state disproved the defense of another claim beyond a reasonable doubt based on video evidence and witness credibility. It also rejected the voluntary manslaughter argument as improperly raised at trial and upheld the trial court's discretion regarding the masked witness.

Court
Court of Appeals of Ohio, Second Appellate District
Jurisdiction
Ohio
Decision date
April 25, 2025
Docket number
30254
Procedural posture
Appellant convicted of murder appealed from Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas judgment
Standard of review
manifest‑weight review for self‑defense claim; plain error for mask testimony; de novo for sentencing error
Precedential value
published
Parties
Antonio Marvin Murray v. State of Ohio
Disposition
reversed_and_remanded

Topics

self defensecriminal procedureevidenceappellate proceduresentencing

Practice areas

criminal procedure

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the State met its burden of disproving beyond a reasonable doubt Murray's claim of defense of another.
  2. Whether Murray's conviction should be for murder or voluntary manslaughter.
  3. Whether permitting a witness to testify while wearing a mask violated the Confrontation Clause.
  4. Whether the trial court erred by running the third firearm‑specification sentence consecutively rather than concurrently.

Holdings

  1. The State satisfied its burden; Murray's self‑defense claim was properly rejected and the murder conviction affirmed.
  2. Murray's conviction for murder is affirmed; voluntary manslaughter is not supported by the evidence.
  3. No error; the mask did not deprive Murray of his confrontation rights and the trial court's decision is upheld.
  4. The trial court erred; the sentencing provision requires the discretionary firearm specification to run concurrently. The judgment is reversed on that issue and remanded for a concurrent sentence.

Key quotations

The State’s burden “of disproving the defendant's self‑defense claim beyond a reasonable doubt is subject to a manifest‑weight review on appeal.” (¶ 27)
The trial judge credited the testimony of the State's witnesses over Murray’s, and we defer to his credibility assessment. (¶ 36)
The Confrontation Clause does not require the factfinder to “see a witness’ entire face or body.” (¶ 54)

Factual background

Murray shot R.B. after R.B. approached Simmons, who had recently broken up with R.B. Murray claimed he acted to protect Simmons from imminent danger. Video evidence showed the shooting occurred within seconds of R.B.'s approach, contradicting Murray's claim of a prolonged assault.

Procedural history

Murray was convicted of murder and related offenses after a bench trial; sentenced to 15 years to life plus three consecutive three‑year firearm specifications; appealed on self‑defense, murder vs. voluntary manslaughter, mask testimony, and sentencing issues.

Remand instructions

Impose a concurrent sentence on the third firearm specification, resulting in a total sentence of 21 years to life.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…