State v. Small

Ohio Court of Appeals, Tenth Appellate District · 2007 · Evidence

2007 Ohio 6771 (App. Ct. 2007)

Updated August 22, 2026

EvidenceHearsayAuthenticationSpeedy TrialSufficiency of the EvidenceManifest WeightProsecutorial MisconductEvid.R. 803(3)

Facts

The victim, Robel Medhin, was found dead from a single gunshot wound to the mouth near an apartment building. Two witnesses, Sharon Small and Jeffrey Hairston, testified that after an argument involving defendant, Sharon Small, and Regina Long, defendant confronted Medhin, backed him against a wall, told him to open his mouth, and shot him. Evidence also showed defendant was angry because Medhin owed him money, and Ellos testified that Medhin feared for his life over a $900 debt and later called a person identified as "Dominique," a name witnesses said defendant used. After the shooting, defendant said, "Look what you bitches made me do."

Issue

Whether the trial court erred by admitting Ellos's testimony about Medhin's statements and the later phone conversation with "Dominique" under the hearsay and authentication rules. The appeal also asked whether speedy-trial time was tolled by defendant's discovery request, whether the evidence was sufficient and not against the manifest weight on prior calculation and design, and whether an improper closing remark required reversal.

Rule

A defendant's demand for discovery tolls speedy-trial time under R.C. 2945.72(E) for a reasonable period needed for the state's response, and the state need not prove the request caused actual trial delay. Statements expressing a declarant's then-existing fear are admissible under Evid.R. 803(3); statements against penal or pecuniary interest are admissible under Evid.R. 804(B)(3) if the declarant is unavailable and corroborating circumstances indicate trustworthiness; and questions are not hearsay because they are not assertions. A telephone speaker may be authenticated through distinctive characteristics and surrounding circumstances under Evid.R. 901(B)(4), and once authenticated, the speaker's statements offered against him are admissible as party-opponent admissions under Evid.R. 801(D)(2)(a). Prior calculation and design may be inferred from an execution-style killing and surrounding circumstances showing a scheme to kill.

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Columbus, Ohio, Malik Turner was jailed on a felony charge and had to be tried within 90 days under the triple-count rule. On day 70, Malik filed a discovery demand; the prosecutor responded 19 days later, within a local rule allowing 21 days for discovery responses, and trial began on day 92 counting only non-tolled days unless the response period is excluded.

Should the trial court dismiss for a speedy-trial violation?

Explanation. The majority held that a defendant's discovery demand tolls speedy-trial time under R.C. 2945.72(E) for a reasonable period needed for the state's response, and the state need not show actual delay. A response within the local 21-day rule was treated as reasonable absent contrary circumstances, so the 19-day period would be excluded.