Background
Shaking Adonta Jones was convicted of murder, felonious assault, and having a weapon while under disability after Darnell Pate was shot three times inside his Ford Expedition outside a bar. The shooter fled in a stolen Hyundai Tucson, which police found abandoned shortly afterward.
The State presented fingerprint evidence linking Jones to both vehicles, DNA evidence linking him to a sweatshirt left in the Hyundai, matching shell casings found outside his sister’s apartment, and cell-site data consistent with travel from the shooting scene to where the Hyundai was abandoned. A jury acquitted Jones of a separate aggravated-robbery charge but convicted him of the offenses tied to Pate’s death.
The Court’s Holding
The Second District affirmed. It held that any suppression error concerning statements, a co-defendant’s photo identification, and certain phones was harmless because that evidence was not introduced at trial. Jones lacked a demonstrated reasonable expectation of privacy in his sister’s apartment, and the apartment-search warrant was supported by probable cause.
The court concluded that the affidavit supporting a warrant for cell-phone records did not itself establish probable cause, but suppression was unwarranted under the good-faith exception. It also upheld admission of a Facebook image as circumstantial identity evidence, found the evidence sufficient and not against the manifest weight, rejected merger of murder and weapons-under-disability offenses, upheld the firearm-specification sentences, and found no ineffective assistance from counsel’s failure to seek severance.
Key Takeaways
- Evidence not used at trial cannot support reversible suppression error.
- A deficient warrant affidavit may still permit use of evidence when officers reasonably rely on the warrant in good faith.
- Ohio law permits sentences on multiple firearm specifications even when the underlying offenses merge.
Why It Matters
The decision applies the good-faith exception to cell-phone records obtained under a warrant whose affidavit did not adequately connect the phone number to the defendant. It also underscores that distinct possession of a firearm before its use in a killing can support a separate weapons-under-disability sentence.