State v. Wall

[Cite as State v. Wall, 2026-Ohio-2846.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COLUMBIANA COUNTY STATE OF OHIO, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JENO L. WALL, Defendant-Appellant. OPINION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY Case No. 25 CO 0041 Criminal Appeal from the Court of Common Pleas of Columbiana County, Ohio Case No. 2024 CR 651 BEFORE: Mark A. Hanni, Cheryl L. Waite, Katelyn Dickey, Judges. JUDGMENT: Affirmed. Atty. Vito J. Abruzzino, Columbiana County Prosecutor, and Atty. Ryan P. Weikart, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Plaintiff-Appellee and Atty. James R. Wise, for Defendant-Appellant. Dated: July 23, 2026  –2– HANNI, J. {¶1} Defendant-Appellant, Jeno L. Wall, appeals from a Columbiana County Common Pleas Court judgment sentencing him to life in prison without parole plus 36 months in prison consecutive to that sentence. Appellant was convicted of aggravated murder, murder, firearm specifications, and intimidation of a witness. {¶2} Appellant asserts the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress a witness identification because the police failed to comply with photo line-up procedures. Appellant also contends the trial court committed plain error by allowing a detective to testify as an expert when he was not proffered or qualified as one. Appellant also contends there was insufficient evidence to convict him of aggravated murder and intimidation of a witness and these convictions were against the manifest weight of the evidence. He further maintains that cumulative errors in allowing inadmissible testimony denied him a fair trial. {¶3} Appellant’s assignments of error lack merit. While police improperly presented a single photo of Appellant to a witness and 33 minutes later presented a faulty photo array, these errors were acknowledged at trial and the trial court charged the jury with a special instruction relating to the photo identification. In addition, proffering and qualifying the detective who testified about cell phone extraction as an expert was not necessary because he provided lay testimony. Additionally, sufficient evidence supports Appellant’s aggravated murder and intimidation of a witness convictions. Witnesses testified at trial that Appellant became increasingly agitated as he repeatedly searched for the victim, struck the victim with a gun when he found him, and shot the victim in the back while the victim was kneeling. Minutes after shooting the victim in front of witnesses, Appellant brandished his gun to one of the witnesses and threatened that the witness would be next if he said anything. Finally, Appellant was not denied a fair trial because no cumulative errors exist and other evidence supports his convictions. I. RELEVANT FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY {¶4} The Columbiana County Grand Jury indicted Appellant for: aggravated murder in violation of R.C. 2903.01(A) and murder in violation of R.C. 2903.02(A), both Case No. 25 CO 0041  –3– unclassified felonies, with firearm specifications; and intimidation of a witness in violation of R.C. 2921.04(B)(2), a third degree felony. {¶5} On July 29, 2025, Appellant filed a motion to suppress a witness identification based on a photo lineup that violated his due process rights. The court held a hearing, where Lieutenant Marsha Eisenhart of the Village of Wellsville Police Department testified. The trial court denied Appellant’s motion. {¶6} The jury trial began on September 23, 2025. The State presented 19 witnesses and Appellant testified as his sole defense witness. {¶7} Trial testimony revealed the following relevant facts. On September 9, 2024 at 11:30 p.m., Wellsville Police Department dispatch received a call about shots fired at 10th and 504 Lisbon Street. (Trial Tr. 222-223). Officers Jeff Weekley and Shawn Bloor of the Wellsville Police Department searched the property, which was owned by James Howell, who was not home at the time. (Trial Tr. 227-228). {¶8} As Officer Weekley reentered his cruiser, he noticed an individual lying face down on the ground with his hand raised. (Trial Tr. 228-229). Officer Bloor identified the individual as R.H. (Trial Tr. 229). R.H. did not respond to questions, but repeatedly stated his back hurt and he could not breathe. (Trial Tr. 229, 231). Officer Weekley noticed blood on R.H.’s mouth and radioed for an ambulance. (Trial Tr. 230). {¶9} As they waited, Officer Weekley asked the victim what happened and who injured him, but the victim did not answer. (Trial Tr. 230). Eventually, the victim stated, “Oh, we were just playing around.” (Trial Tr. 231). The victim stopped responding and emergency medical technicians arrived at the scene and discovered a gunshot wound on the victim’s back. (Trial Tr. 232). The victim died a short time later. {¶10} Officers secured the scene and persons of interest were identified as Brandon Kessler, Matt Hawkins, James Howell, and eventually Appellant. (Trial Tr. 237). {¶11} James Howell testified that he and the victim, also known as Hubba, were close friends. (Trial Tr. 266-267). He related that R.H. and R.H.’s girlfriend, Tiffany Sattler, lived in his garage for a couple of months before the shooting. (Trial Tr. 266-268). He described the relationship between R.H. and Ms. Sattler as “toxic.” (Trial Tr. 268). He asked them to move out a week before the shooting. (Trial Tr. 269). Case No. 25 CO 0041  –4– {¶12} Howell testified that Appellant came to his trailer and helped R.H. and Ms. Sattler move out of his garage. (Trial Tr. 269). This was the first time he saw Appellant and Appellant told Howell he looked familiar. (Trial Tr. 270). Howell also observed that Appellant, R.H., and Ms. Sattler were picked up by someone driving a black truck with yellow fog lights. (Trial Tr. 271). {¶13} Mr. Howell recalled that on September 9, 2024, his dog escaped and he went looking for her. (Trial Tr. 273). He noticed Ms. Sattler sleeping in his garage and a few hours later, R.H. appeared at his house. (Trial Tr. 273-274). Howell left when Ms. Sattler and R.H. began fighting in his garage. (Trial Tr. 275). {¶14} Mr. Howell returned to his garage and R.H. and Matt Hawkins stopped by around 7:30 p.m. or 8:00 p.m. (Trial Tr. 277-278). He testified they “hung out” in the garage and his mom dropped off food. (Trial Tr. 278-279). He recalled Appellant stopped by a half an hour later, after everyone left, and stated he was looking for R.H. (Trial Tr. 279-280). Appellant stayed for 15 to 20 minutes, stated that R.H. “kept dogging Tiffany,” and Appellant wanted to talk with R.H. (Trial Tr. 280-281). {¶15} Mr. Howell testified Appellant acted differently than the previous visit and he thought Appellant was drunk. (Trial Tr. 281). He told Appellant R.H. was not there, but Appellant did not believe him. (Trial Tr. 282). Appellant ultimately left in the same truck with the same driver from the prior day. (Trial Tr. 282-283). {¶16} Mr. Howell further testified that Appellant again returned, more agitated and jittery. (Trial Tr. 284). Appellant demanded Howell take him into his garage and trailer to search for R.H. (Trial Tr. 284). Appellant stumbled into the wall inside Howell’s trailer. (Trial Tr. 284). Howell observed that Appellant was angry about his inability to find R.H. (Trial Tr. 285). Around 10:30 p.m., once Appellant left, Howell texted R.H. and told him Appellant and Brandon Kessler were looking for him. (Trial Tr. 285). Kessler’s home is located in front of Howell’s residence. (Trial Tr. 288). {¶17} Mr. Howell testified that because he was scared and irritated with the situation, he holstered his .380 Smith & Wesson to his person. (Trial Tr. 287). He stated Appellant was aggressive and he was uncertain of the actions Appellant might take. (Trial Tr. 287). Howell related that 15 to 20 minutes later, Appellant and Kessler returned and began searching his garage for R.H., asking him if he saw R.H. (Trial Tr. 289). Howell Case No. 25 CO 0041  –5– thereafter sent another message to R.H., telling him Appellant and Kessler were looking for him as they walked toward Kessler’s house. (Trial Tr. 290). {¶18} Mr. Howell testified he returned to his garage when he heard a loud bang out front. (Trial Tr. 290). He stated Appellant and Kessler had found R.H. lying on the side of his garage next to a telephone pole. (Trial Tr. 291). Howell testified he was 10 feet away as he watched Appellant hit R.H. and yell at him to fight. (Trial Tr. 291-292). {¶19} Mr. Howell testified that when R.H. did not get up and fight back, he saw Appellant pull out a gun from his waist and hand it to Kessler. (Trial Tr. 292). He watched Appellant choke R.H., retrieve the gun from Kessler, and strike R.H. with it. (Trial Tr. 292). He observed R.H. fall down, then Appellant point the gun at R.H. and shoot him. (Trial Tr. 292). He saw Appellant and Kessler then run towards 10th Street, while he remained in his driveway. (Trial Tr. 293). Howell did not pull out his gun as he was scared and not sure he could shoot someone. (Trial Tr. 293). {¶20} Mr. Howell recalled Appellant telling him to come back as he was turning to walk back to his trailer. (Trial Tr. 294). Howell testified Appellant told him to tell police he did not know R.H. and he is a “crackhead” from the neighborhood. (Trial Tr. 294). Howell testified that as he turned to go into his trailer, he noticed his dog had escaped again and was chasing Appellant and Kessler down the street. (Trial Tr. 294). He walked to retrieve his dog and while he was at the edge of Kessler’s yard, Appellant approached him, showed him the gun on his hip, and told him if he said anything, he would be next. (Trial Tr. 295-296). {¶21} Mr. Howell ran to his sister’s house. (Trial Tr. 296). He waited in her house for three hours until she arrived. (Trial Tr. 298). They then got into her car to leave, but were blocked in by the police. (Trial Tr. 299). Howell was taken to the police station, identified R.H., and told police Appellant shot R.H. (Trial Tr. 300). {¶22} On cross-examination, Howell admitted the first two times he spoke with police, he did not tell them he was carrying a gun. (Trial Tr. 306). He testified he left the gun at his sister’s house because the gun was stolen and he was on probation. (Trial Tr. 313-314). {¶23} On re-cross examination, Howell confirmed he first described the shooter to police as a 5’9” to 6’0” black male with short hair. (Trial Tr. 320). He testified at the Case No. 25 CO 0041  –6– station, police showed him a picture of Appellant and identified Appellant by name. (Trial Tr. 321). He stated the person in the picture shot R.H. (Trial Tr. 321). He did not know Appellant’s name at that time, but knew his face. (Trial Tr. 321). {¶24} Mr. Howell’s sister testified she found Howell partially lying under her son’s bed upstairs when she returned home between 1:30 a.m. and 2:00 a.m. on September 10, 2024. (Trial Tr. 326-328). She stated Howell was scared and told her a black man shot R.H. at his house, the man was a drug dealer, and Howell did not know his name, but saw him before. (Trial Tr. 328). She testified they got into her car to leave her home, but police cars blocked them from leaving. (Trial Tr. 330). {¶25} Joshua Kersey testified he resided with K.G. in September 2024 where he met Appellant, whom he also knew as “Mally-Mall.” (Trial Tr. 346). He was “partying” with Appellant and others on September 9, 2024 at K.G.’s house when Appellant left around 10:30 or 11:00 p.m. (Trial Tr. 347-348). He related Appellant returned at 12:45 a.m. or 1:00 a.m. with Ms. Sattler. (Trial Tr. 349). He testified Ms. Sattler and Appellant showered, washed their clothes, and she fell asleep. (Trial Tr. 350). {¶26} Mr. Kersey testified someone later showed him a Facebook post stating R.H. had been murdered. (Trial Tr. 351). He did not realize a connection until someone told him R.H. was Ms. Sattler’s boyfriend. (Trial Tr. 351). However, he recalled overhearing Appellant on the phone telling someone Ms. Sattler was the one and “whatever happened, it happened again.” (Trial Tr. 352-353). He stated K.G. wanted Appellant and Ms. Sattler to leave, but they refused to do so. (Trial Tr. 353). {¶27} On cross-examination, Kersey admitted he was “out of his mind” high that night. (Trial Tr. 358). He testified he and Appellant were arrested by police that night. (Trial Tr. 355). He had an outstanding warrant. (Trial Tr. 355). He and Appellant were taken in separate police cars and placed in different cells. (Trial Tr. 355). {¶28} Codie Balser testified she met Appellant two days before the shooting. (Trial Tr. 361). She recalled sitting in K.G.’s bedroom with Appellant and Ms. Sattler when she received a text that R.H. died. (Trial Tr. 365). She showed it to Ms. Sattler, who did not react, but when she told Appellant, Ms. Sattler said something to him and they both began laughing. (Trial Tr. 366). She observed that Appellant became quiet and anxious once the information came out and he paced back and forth. (Trial Tr. 367). Case No. 25 CO 0041  –7– {¶29} Ms. Balser testified she left K.G.’s house around 5:00 a.m. because she had a bad feeling and questioned whether Appellant and Ms. Sattler had something to do with the shooting. (Trial Tr. 368). She further testified that she cleaned homes for a living and months later, she was cleaning between two garages on 10th Street when she discovered a steel casing near Mr. Howell’s residence. (Trial Tr. 369). She contacted the police and they took the casing. (Trial Tr. 369). {¶30} Joseph Savin testified he met R.H. a month before the shooting and he knew Brandon Kessler, also known as “Chico,” because they helped each other find work and they would get high together. (Trial Tr. 380-382). He also met Appellant a month before the shooting and worked with him a couple of times. (Trial Tr. 382). He knew Appellant cared for Ms. Sattler. (Trial Tr. 384). Mr. Savin reported he helped Appellant move Ms. Sattler out of Howell’s house on September 9, 2024. (Trial Tr. 385). He worked all day when he received a text stating that R.H. was at Kessler’s house “acting crazy and attacking the house.” (Trial Tr. 386). He drove his truck, a dark green Ford F-250 with “chicken lights” on top, to Kessler’s house and saw Kessler standing outside saying he should not have to deal with the situation because it was his roommate’s fault. (Trial Tr. 387-388). {¶31} Mr. Savin contacted R.H. and told him not to tear up his belongings and R.H. agreed. (Trial Tr. 388). Savin then told Kessler that Appellant and R.H. did not get along, so they got Appellant to come to the house to diffuse the situation. (Trial Tr. 389). He messaged Appellant on Facebook and told him he was coming to get him to “hang out” and get high at Kessler’s house. (Trial Tr. 390). Savin testified he and Kessler picked up Appellant and then returned to Kessler’s house. (Trial Tr. 389-393). {¶32} Savin testified that five minutes later, he saw Appellant walk out of the house and head toward Howell’s trailer. (Trial Tr. 393). Savin got into his truck and picked up Appellant, telling him to get in and to stay at Kessler’s house. (Trial Tr. 393, 395). The last time he saw Appellant was in Kessler’s yard talking to Kessler. (Trial Tr. 396). Mr. Savin recalled that Appellant then asked him for a ride home and he dropped Appellant and Ms. Sattler in the parking lot of Pep Minimart. (Trial Tr. 398). He returned to Kessler’s house and then drove Kessler back to the gas station to get more drinks. Case No. 25 CO 0041  –8– (Trial Tr. 399). He observed Kessler’s demeanor as “pretty normal,” but noted “everyone was high on methamphetamines, so normal is kind of weird.” (Trial Tr. 400). {¶33} Patrolman Caden Weekley testified police located Appellant and took him to the police station for an interview. (Trial Tr. 429). He testified that Appellant stated he had been at K.G.’s house, but he denied being on 10th Street that night. (Trial Tr. 433). He also denied knowing Kessler and Savin. (Trial Tr. 433-434). He described Ms. Sattler as his best friend. (Trial Tr. 434-435). He also knew Hubba was Ms. Sattler’s boyfriend. (Trial Tr. 434). {¶34} Patrolman Weekley described Appellant as protective of Ms. Sattler, stating she had nothing to do with anything and she was with him all day. (Trial Tr. 435). Appellant admitted abusing drugs at K.G.’s house, including methamphetamine, and he was “high as hell.” (Trial Tr. 441). Appellant reported R.H. was beating Ms. Sattler and she was crying and had marks on her neck. (Trial Tr. 442). Appellant admitted he was very angry, and then admitted he was at K.G.’s house on September 9, 2024, and Savin, who was his boss, had taken him and Ms. Sattler to the gas station in a blue or green truck with orange lighting. (Trial Tr. 444). {¶35} Patrolman Weekley further testified that Appellant suggested R.H. died from an overdose and then later stated that R.H. was not dead. (Trial Tr. 446). He also asked who was talking to the police and stating that he had murdered R.H. (Trial Tr. 446). Appellant told Patrolman Weekley they were lying and stated that he was “going to beat their ass with my bare hands.” (Trial Tr. 446). Patrolman Weekley recalled that Appellant became very agitated when they discussed bringing Ms. Sattler in for questioning. (Trial Tr. 447). He also recalled Appellant saying to himself, “Whoever’s snitching is going to get dealt with.” (Trial Tr. 448). {¶36} On cross-examination, Patrolman Weekley indicated that Appellant appeared to be under the influence of drugs during the first interview. (Trial Tr. 452). He did not recall a discussion about chemical testing to see if Appellant had fired a firearm and he advised that no one present at K.G.’s house on the night of the shooting was interviewed at that time. (Trial Tr. 453-456). Patrolman Weekley did not recall finding any evidence of drug use at K.G.’s house. (Trial Tr. 456). Case No. 25 CO 0041  –9– {¶37} Dr. Alison Krywanczyk performed the autopsy on R.H. for the Columbiana County Coroner’s Office on September 10, 2024. (Trial Tr. 464-466). She stated Appellant sustained a gunshot wound to the back that traveled near his right shoulder, down to his right rib, right lung and into the abdominal cavity. (Trial Tr. 471). It injured his diaphragm, fractured a vertebrae in his spinal column, injured his small intestine, and struck major blood vessels in his stomach and aorta. (Trial Tr. 471-472). {¶38} She testified the unusual trajectory of the projectile could be consistent with R.H. kneeling and the shooter positioned above him. (Trial Tr. 474). She also noted R.H. had blunt force injuries on his face and knees, as well as abrasions and contusions. (Trial Tr. 476-477). She concluded R.H. died from a gunshot wound to the back and the manner of death was homicide. (Trial Tr. 489, 492). On cross-examination, she opined it was possible from the bullet trajectory that R.H. also could have been shot while sitting in a chair. (Trial Tr. 493). She confirmed a toxicology report showed R.H. had amphetamine, methamphetamine, nicotine, cocaine metabolite, and alcohol in his system. (Trial Tr. 497- 498). {¶39} Ohio BCI Agent Andrew Chappell testified he analyzed a fired bullet found on the scene and a report was prepared by National Integrated Ballistic Information Network Lab Technician Patrick Murphy, who concluded that the caliber of the casing was a 9-millimeter Luger. (Trial Tr. 517-523). He stated on cross-examination that no gun was analyzed as one was not submitted. (Trial Tr. 524-525). {¶40} Detective Daniel Haueter of the East Palestine Police Department testified he had certifications in extraction that included Secureview/Datapilot software forensic system, Cellebrite forensic system, smartphone analysis, and physical analysis. (Trial Tr. 529-530). The certifications showed his training in extraction, which is the transfer of data from a mobile phone to a particular system. (Trial Tr. 530). He explained he was also trained in analyzation, which is looking at the data and details from the extraction. (Trial Tr. 530). {¶41} Detective Haueter testified he assisted the police in extractions from various electronic devices relating to the shooting. (Trial Tr. 544). He analyzed James Howell’s BLU model cellular device which yielded a Facebook Messenger message between R.H. and James Howell. (Trial Tr. 546-548). He indicated that exchanges occurred Monday, Case No. 25 CO 0041  – 10 – September 9, 2024 at 12:30 a.m., 7:30 p.m. and 11:20 p.m. (Trial Tr. 548). He read the 11:20 p.m. message to the jury, in which Howell told R.H. to stop by his house and warned that Chico and the person who picked up Appellant and Ms. Sattler in the truck were looking for him and thought he was hiding at Howell’s house. (Trial Tr. 548). He told R.H. to get there and “handle it” and indicated they wanted to talk to him and would be at Kessler’s house. (Trial Tr. 548). {¶42} Detective Haueter further testified he analyzed Appellant’s iphone, which showed an extraction indicating that two hours after the shooting, Appellant texted Joseph Savin and stated he left a hoodie in Savin’s truck. (Trial Tr. 582). The text stated that the hoodie was “the dirty one I should worry about.” (Trial Tr. 584). {¶43} Brandon Kessler testified he lived on 10th Street at the relevant time with his roommate J.L. and he was testifying in cooperation with a plea agreement. (Trial Tr. 608-609). He worked on September 9, 2024 and arrived home that evening. (Trial Tr. 610). J.L.’s girlfriend was there when he arrived, but J.L. was not. (Trial Tr. 610). {¶44} Kessler was a friend of R.H. and R.H. and Ms. Sattler lived with him for a few months prior to the shooting. (Trial Tr. 611). He related the two also had lived with James Howell and Howell’s house was half a block away from his. (Trial Tr. 612). {¶45} Mr. Kessler testified that when he arrived home, J.L.’s girlfriend told him R.H. and Anthony Powell were coming to the house to fight J.L. and she called Joseph Savin to come to the house. (Trial Tr. 613-614). Kessler said when Savin appeared, he and Kessler went for a ride in Savin’s truck, as they often did. (Trial Tr. 614-615). Kessler related he did not know where they were going until they picked up Appellant, whom he did not know at the time. (Trial Tr. 617). {¶46} Mr. Kessler indicated they drove back to his house and he went inside, while J.L. and Ms. Sattler stayed in the driveway. (Trial Tr. 619). When Kessler went back outside, he saw Appellant, J.L., and Ms. Sattler talking. (Trial Tr. 619). He overheard Appellant asking Ms. Sattler where R.H. was. (Trial Tr. 620). {¶47} Mr. Kessler testified he and Appellant then walked over to James Howell’s house to look for R.H. because Kessler was looking for a watch R.H. stole from him. (Trial Tr. 620-621). They looked around at Howell’s house, and asked him if he saw R.H. (Trial Tr. 621). Howell told them he had not seen R.H., so Kessler and Appellant returned to Case No. 25 CO 0041  – 11 – Kessler’s house. (Trial Tr. 621). {¶48} Mr. Kessler testified he walked back into his house and Appellant was back at the side field beside his house. (Trial Tr. 622). The two then returned to Howell’s house to look for R.H. (Trial Tr. 622). Kessler related he was not sure why Appellant was looking for R.H., but he knew Appellant had spoken to Ms. Sattler and knew she was fighting with R.H. (Trial Tr. 622). {¶49} Mr. Kessler found a black drawstring bag hanging on the gate around the right side of the front of James Howell’s garage. (Trial Tr. 623). He “hollered” to Appellant that he found R.H.’s bag, and he saw Appellant on Lisbon Street near the front of the garage. (Trial Tr. 623). Appellant walked back towards him, still looking around, and Kessler and Howell walked from the front of the garage to where the gate was located, and saw that Appellant had found R.H. there. (Trial Tr. 624). {¶50} Mr. Kessler testified R.H. must have been hiding there and as he and Howell came around the corner, they saw that Appellant had R.H. down on his knees. (Trial Tr. 625). He recalled hearing Appellant tell R.H. to stand up, but as R.H. tried to do so, Appellant hit him in the mouth with a gun. (Trial Tr. 625). He then saw Appellant pull the trigger and shoot R.H. (Trial Tr. 625). Kessler stated he turned around and ran. (Trial Tr. 625). He heard R.H. say, “You shot me” to Appellant. (Trial Tr. 626). {¶51} Mr. Kessler testified he ran back to his house and Appellant ended up there as well. (Trial Tr. 626). He indicated he got a good look at the gun and it was a black and silver .9 millimeter pistol. (Trial Tr. 626-627). He went upstairs and heard Joseph Savin and Appellant come in and they gave him the gun, which was in a Crown Royal bag. (Trial Tr. 627-628). Appellant told Kessler that Savin would be back to take him to get rid of the gun. (Trial Tr. 628). He saw Appellant, Savin, and Ms. Sattler leave in the truck together. (Trial Tr. 628). {¶52} Savin thereafter returned to pick up Kessler and Kessler testified he threw the gun in the river at Riverside. (Trial Tr. 628). He was scared he was going to be killed. (Trial Tr. 629). Savin then drove him to the store to get cigarettes and a Dr. Pepper, and then dropped him off at home. (Trial Tr. 629). The police arrived at his house, but he did not answer his door as he was scared and trying to process the situation. (Trial Tr. 629). Case No. 25 CO 0041  – 12 – {¶53} Mr. Kessler testified he spoke to police on September 10, 2024 and was not completely honest when he told them he did not know the “black guy” that shot R.H. (Trial Tr. 630). He also failed to tell police he threw the gun in the river. (Trial Tr. 631). He said he was afraid either he or his family would be killed. (Trial Tr. 632). He spoke to police three additional times. {¶54} Mr. Kessler indicated that since he has been in jail, Appellant threatened him and his children. (Trial Tr. 632). He reported the threats to jail personnel. (Trial Tr. 633). He identified Appellant as the person who killed R.H. (Trial Tr. 632). {¶55} On cross-examination, Kessler explained he and R.H. were friends at one time, but at the time of the shooting, they were not because R.H. stole from him and pulled a gun on his girlfriend when trying to break into his house. (Trial Tr. 637). He denied he pulled a gun on R.H. a week prior to the shooting. (Trial Tr. 637). {¶56} Mr. Kessler also acknowledged Howell usually carried a gun, but he said he did not see it on him the night of the shooting. (Trial Tr. 642). He testified he saw Howell’s gun in Appellant’s hand after the shooting when Appellant came to his house to give him the gun Appellant used to kill R.H. (Trial Tr. 642-643). Kessler clarified that Appellant’s gun was in the Crown Royal bag, and Appellant had Howell’s gun in his hand when he gave Kessler his gun in the Crown Royal bag. (Trial Tr. 644). {¶57} Mr. Kessler acknowledged he did not tell police the entire truth about September 9, 2024. (Trial Tr. 645). He explained he was scared for himself and his children. (Trial Tr. 645). He did tell police he disposed of the murder weapon when he requested an interview on January 29, 2025. (Trial Tr. 646). He first stated he did not know why he requested the interview, but then admitted he was hoping to get a better deal from the State as he faced obstruction charges. (Trial Tr. 647). {¶58} Mr. Kessler opined that Joseph Savin and Ms. Sattler created the scheme to kill R.H. (Trial Tr. 648). He admitted R.H. stole thousands of dollars of tools and appliances from him and trashed his house. (Trial Tr. 650). He denied having any romantic involvement with Ms. Sattler, but stated J.L. did. (Trial Tr. 650). He acknowledged Ms. Sattler came to stay with him after R.H.’s death and she then went to live with James Howell. (Trial Tr. 651-652). Case No. 25 CO 0041  – 13 – {¶59} An investigator for the Wellsville Prosecutor’s Office testified he reviewed video surveillance collected by the Wellsville Police Department from five places in the neighborhood where the shooting occurred. (Trial Tr. 705-706). The prosecution used the videos and the investigator’s review of the videos to support the testimony of its witnesses as to Appellant’s actions and locations on the night of the shooting. {¶60} An inmate from the Columbiana County Jail testified he knew Appellant because he was in the jail when Appellant was placed there for this case. (Trial Tr. 772). He related that Appellant offered him $3,000 and “90 grams of ice,” or methamphetamine, if he told police it was James Howell who shot R.H. (Trial Tr. 772-773). The inmate acknowledged Joseph Savin was his wife’s nephew. (Trial Tr. 779). {¶61} Lieutenant Eisenhart of the Wellsville Police Department testified she responded to the shooting and reviewed items found at the scene, including glasses found lying near R.H. (Trial Tr. 789-794). She also noted a knife lying near his body, two flashlights, makeup and hair ties, but said they had no significance to the murder. (Trial Tr. 794, 799). {¶62} She stated she was familiar with R.H. and knew Ms. Sattler was his girlfriend, he was a friend of James Howell, and Brandon Kessler lived across the street. (Trial Tr. 800-801). She also knew R.H. and Kessler accused each other of stealing, and were afraid the other would steal his girlfriend. (Trial Tr. 801). She recalled a police call a month before the shooting in which R.H. was accused of pulling a gun on Kessler. (Trial Tr. 801-802). Charges were filed against R.H. (Trial Tr. 802). {¶63} Lieutenant Eisenhart outlined the instant investigation. (Trial Tr. 801-805). She testified that police identified “Mally” as an individual about whom they had received complaints prior to the shooting. (Trial Tr. 812). She received information that Ms. Sattler was associating with a male from Detroit whose street name was Mally. (Trial Tr. 805). An officer found Mally on Facebook and sent the photo to Lieutenant Eisenhart’s cell phone. (Trial Tr. 812). She showed Howell the Facebook photo. (Trial Tr. 812). Howell responded, “yeah, that’s him” when she showed him the photo. (Trial Tr. 813). Police later determined Appellant’s name and his nickname. (Trial Tr. 813). {¶64} Lieutenant Eisenhart testified that about 35 minutes after showing Howell the Facebook photo, she presented him a photo lineup, which did not include the Case No. 25 CO 0041  – 14 – Facebook photo. (Trial Tr. 814). Howell identified Appellant from the lineup. (Trial Tr. 814). She knew Howell had interactions with Appellant prior to the shooting. (Trial Tr. 814). Lieutenant Eisenhart interviewed Howell a second time and this interview was consistent with the shooting. (Trial Tr. 816). She interviewed Kessler the following day and he was nervous, but cooperative. (Trial Tr. 817). He told her about the shooting, which was similar to the facts Howell told her, which was that a black male in a light- colored hoodie shot R.H. (Trial Tr. 818). She interviewed Kessler additional times and his description of the shooter did not change. (Trial Tr. 819). {¶65} Lieutenant Eisenhart reviewed video footage and devices found at the scene. (Trial Tr. 835-843). She submitted the devices to Detective Haueter for extraction and thereafter received extraction reports. (Trial Tr. 844). She also received information the next day that Appellant was at K.G.’s house and when she drove there, Appellant, Ms. Sattler, Josh Kersey, K.G., and Anthony Vaughn were present. (Trial Tr. 845). Appellant was taken into custody. (Trial Tr. 846). {¶66} A search of K.G.’s residence yielded a cream-colored jacket that was sent to BCI, but it contained no gunshot residue. (Trial Tr. 848-849). Lieutenant Eisenhart speculated the jacket may have been laundered as a text message between Joseph Savin and Appellant stated Appellant was worried about the dirty hoodie in Savin’s backseat. (Trial Tr. 851). A gunshot residue test was not performed on Appellant because 12 hours had passed since the shooting. (Trial Tr. 852-853). {¶67} Lieutenant Eisenhart stated she had watched the recording of Appellant’s first interview and observed he was agitated, rocking back and forth, and appeared to be under the influence. (Trial Tr. 855). She interviewed Appellant on October 30, 2024 and he told her he was in the alley by the football field near K.G.’s house on the night of the shooting. (Trial Tr. 857). He denied ever having been on 10th or Lisbon Street, stated he did not know Kessler or Howell, and told her he had heard of Savin. (Trial Tr. 858). {¶68} Lieutenant Eisenhart testified that Appellant then stated he knew Savin as he worked with him a few times. (Trial Tr. 866). He also told her he was irritated and had taken methamphetamine, although he thought it was “Mally” [sic]. (Trial Tr. 866). He told her he was “fried” when police took him into custody, but remembered the whole day before. (Trial Tr. 867). He stated he was at K.G.’s the entire day and waited for Ms. Case No. 25 CO 0041  – 15 – Sattler at the football field, where she met him. (Trial Tr. 867). He also stated he was at the gas station with Ms. Sattler and Savin. (Trial Tr. 867-868). {¶69} According to Lieutenant Eisenhart, Appellant told her R.H. overdosed and then he offered to help solve R.H.’s murder, stating he wanted to clear his name. (Trial Tr. 869-871). He told her he knew R.H. was assaulting Ms. Sattler and said he did not care, but would do something if it happened in front of him. (Trial Tr. 871-872). He told her he loved Ms. Sattler, although she could push his buttons. (Trial Tr. 872). He also told her he wore all black on September 9, 2024, even though she observed from the video recording at the gas station that he wore a light-color shirt. (Trial Tr. 870-871). {¶70} Lieutenant Eisenhart also spoke to Appellant’s jailmate who stated Appellant offered him drugs if he would say that James Howell shot R.H. (Trial Tr. 873). She also affirmed she had investigated every lead in the case and nothing pointed to anyone except Appellant as the person who shot R.H. (Trial Tr. 873-874). {¶71} On cross-examination, Lieutenant Eisenhart described the photo lineup procedure. (Trial Tr. 877). She stated she put the suspect’s picture in OHLEG, Ohio’s computer system, and OHLEG’s wizard generated pictures that had the same characteristics as the suspect. (Trial Tr. 877). She explained that a blind administrator, or a person not connected to the investigation, is supposed to present the photographs to the witness, but that was not done in the instant case. (Trial Tr. 877). The photos generated by OHLEG, along with the suspect’s photo, are placed in separate folders and presented to the witness, which she also did not do. (Trial Tr. 878-879). The witness is to view each photo individually and then indicate when he sees each individual photo whether that is the individual or not. (Trial Tr. 879). {¶72} Lieutenant Eisenhart explained that when a blind administrator is not used, a written summary is necessary to explain why it was not done. (Trial Tr. 878). She acknowledged she did not write a summary. (Trial Tr. 878). She also admitted she gave Howell one sheet with six photographs on it rather than separate folders. (Trial Tr. 879). She further admitted she probably should not have shown Howell the Facebook photo of Appellant before the photo lineup. (Trial Tr. 880). {¶73} Lieutenant Eisenhart also confirmed that the only description of the gun used to shoot R.H. was identified by Kessler, who admitted disposing of the gun, and the Case No. 25 CO 0041  – 16 – flashlights she deemed insignificant found at the scene belonged to Howell. (Trial Tr. 882-884). She confirmed neither Howell nor Kessler were tested for gunshot residue, although they were interviewed within hours of or the day after the shooting. (Trial Tr. 885). She stated Appellant offered his fingerprints for testing when he was interviewed. (Trial Tr. 886). {¶74} Lieutenant Eisenhart acknowledged the photo lineup procedure was not followed because the police department is small. (Trial Tr. 903). She noted the lineup procedure is not mandatory and the issue is the reliability of the identification. (Trial Tr. 903). {¶75} Appellant testified. He acknowledged he was placed in Community Corrections Association in Youngstown and left without permission because he did not believe his blood sugar was managed properly. (Trial Tr. 933). He went to live with his sister and met Ms. Sattler through a friend. (Trial Tr. 933). He stated while they were close friends, they were not romantically or intimately involved. (Trial Tr. 933-934). He left his sister’s house after they got into an argument. (Trial Tr. 934). {¶76} Appellant was at K.G.’s house on the day of the shooting, where he, Kersey, K.G., and Ray played videogames, smoked marijuana, and consumed methamphetamines. (Trial Tr. 935-936). Ms. Sattler came over and they talked about her problems with R.H. as R.H. found out she was having “relations” with J.L., Mr. Howell, and an unknown person. (Trial Tr. 938-939). They talked for a while, and then she left to go buy drugs after talking with Joseph Savin and R.H. (Trial Tr. 939). {¶77} Appellant