[Cite as State v. Burns, 2011-Ohio-5926.]

COURT OF APPEALS 

 RICHLAND COUNTY, OHIO 

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

THE STATE OF OHIO, 

 Appellee, 

v. 

ARLIE BURNS, 

 

 Appellant. 

: JUDGES: 

: W. Scott Gwin, P.J. 

: Sheila G. Farmer, J. 

: Julie A. Edwards, J. 

: 

: Case No. 10CA130 

: 

: 

: O P I N I O N

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Criminal Appeal from Richland 

County Court of Common Pleas Case 

No. 2010CR421D 

JUDGMENT: Reversed and Remanded 

DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: November 14, 2011 

APPEARANCES: 

For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendant-Appellant 

JAMES J. MAYER, JR. WILLIAM C. FITHIAN, III 

Prosecuting Attorney 111 North Main Street 

Richland County, Ohio Mansfield, Ohio 44902 

 

BY: DANIEL J. BENOIT 

Assistant Richland County Prosecutor 

38 South Park Street 

Mansfield, Ohio 44902 

 
[Cite as State v. Burns, 2011-Ohio-5926.]

Edwards, J. 

{¶ 1} Defendant-appellant, Arlie Burns, appeals his conviction and sentence 

from the Richland County Court of Common Pleas on one count of aggravated burglary. 

Plaintiff-appellee is the State of Ohio. 

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND CASE

{¶ 2} On July 9, 2010, the Richland County Grand Jury indicted appellant on 

one count of aggravated burglary in violation of R.C. 2911.11(A)(1), a felony of the first 

degree. At his arraignment on July 27, 2010, appellant entered a plea of not guilty to the 

charge. 

{¶ 3} Subsequently, a jury trial commenced on October 14, 2010. The following 

testimony was adduced at trial. 

{¶ 4} On January 10, 2010 at approximately 9:30 p.m., Tyler Ward, his 

girlfriend, Robyn Debiew, and her year and a half old nephew went out to dinner. After 

they returned from dinner, they were in a bedroom in Ward’s apartment at 137 

Lexington Avenue in Richland County when they heard the main door open. When 

Ward walked into the living room, he found two guys, one wearing a bandanna and the 

other wearing a stocking hat. The two men, who attacked him, were trying to steal 

Ward’s TV. Ward testified that he began screaming at the men and telling them to leave 

and that the two men continued attacking him. According to Ward, “they had me on the 

ground and was beating me, kicking me, punching me...” Transcript at 46. 

{¶ 5} Ward testified that the man in the bandanna was stocky, weighed 

approximately 250 to 300 pounds and was of mixed race while the other man was a 

taller, skinny white male. While the white male had Ward pinned to the ground in the 
Richland County App. Case No. 10CA130 3 

hallway, the other male ran into the bedroom where Debiew and her nephew were 

located and shoved Debiew to the ground. Debiew was able to pull the brown hat off of 

the man’s head. The mixed race male then began going through Ward’s drawers and 

took $200.00 to $300.00 in cash that was in a dresser drawer. The two men then 

proceeded out the door and out into the back alley. 

{¶ 6} The police collected the brown Carhartt stocking-type cap that had been 

left at the scene. Ward testified that he later received a telephone call from someone 

named “Johnny” providing him with the name J.R. or Arlie Burns as a possible suspect 

and that he relayed such information to the police. At trial, Ward identified appellant as 

the short, stocky, mixed-race male who had entered his apartment and testified that he 

was 100% sure that appellant was one of the burglars. Ward picked Neil Copeland out 

of a photo array as one of the men involved in the burglary of his apartment. 

{¶ 7} On cross-examination, Ward testified that appellant had a bandanna and 

hat on and that he could see appellant’s mouth, nose, eyes, and facial hair. 

{¶ 8} At trial, Robyn Debiew testified that the man who pushed her down was 

mixed-race and was shorter than the white male. She was able to see the man’s eyes 

and eyebrows and sideburns and identified appellant as being involved in the burglary. 

She testified that appellant fit the description of the man who pushed her down because 

he had sideburns and the same type of skin and hair and was the same weight and 

height. 

{¶ 9} Testimony was adduced at trial that DNA obtained from the hat recovered 

from the scene was from Neil Copeland. At trial, Copeland testified that he knew 

appellant and that appellant also went by the name “JR”. Copeland further testified that, 
Richland County App. Case No. 10CA130 4 

on January 3, 2010, he went with appellant to a residence on Lexington Avenue. 

Copeland testified that he was the driver on such date. According to Copeland, on 

January 10, 2010, the two of them went to the same address to get money or drugs and 

that it was appellant’s idea. Copeland testified that when they entered Ward’s 

apartment, appellant was wearing a ski mask while he had a scarf or bandanna 

covering his face and was wearing a hat. 

{¶ 10} After the burglary, Copeland was contacted by his probation officer and 

told that a Detective would like to speak with him. During a taped statement, Copeland 

admitted to being involved in the burglary and told the Detective that appellant was also 

involved. Copeland further testified that when he initially talked to the Detective, he 

denied involvement in the burglary but that when he was confronted with the evidence 

against him, he admitted his involvement. 

{¶ 11} Detective Chad Brubaker of the Mansfield Police Department testified that 

after testing on the hat revealed Neil Copeland’s DNA, he contacted Neil Copeland and 

that Copeland initially denied involvement in the burglary. However, after being 

confronted by the DNA evidence, Copeland admitted he was involved and implicated 

appellant as a co-defendant. Detective Brubaker further testified that when he later 

spoke with Tyler Ward, Ward provided him with the name JR or Arlie Burns as a 

potential suspect. The Detective then asked appellant to come down to the police 

station. According to Detective Brubaker, appellant initially denied involvement in the 

burglary, but later stated that he had driven Copeland to the scene but had not exited 

the car. The Detective did not show any witness a photo array including appellant 
Richland County App. Case No. 10CA130 5 

because he did not believe that either Ward of Debiew would be able to pick appellant 

out of a line-up based on what they had told him. 

{¶ 12} After the State rested, appellant called Amanda Cline, his fiancée, as a 

witness. Cline testified that Copeland picked up appellant from his mother’s home on 

January 3, 2010. Cline further testified that appellant was with her in Wooster, Ohio 

when the burglary occurred on January 10, 2010. On cross-examination, Cline 

admitted that even though she was aware of the indictment against appellant in July of 

2010 and knew that the indictment indicated that the crime occurred on January 10, 

2010, she did not contact the police or the Prosecutor’s Office with the information that 

appellant was with her in Wooster on such date until the night before trial. 

{¶ 13} At the conclusion of the evidence and the end of deliberations, the jury, on 

October 15, 2010, found appellant guilty of the crime of aggravated burglary. Pursuant 

to a Sentencing Entry filed on October 19, 2010, the trial court sentenced appellant to 

six years in prison and ordered that such sentence be served consecutively to 

appellant’s sentence in another case. The trial court also ordered that appellant pay 

restitution to Ward. 

{¶ 14} Appellant now raises the following assignments of error on appeal: 

{¶ 15} “I. PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT DEPRIVED APPELLANT OF A 

FAIR TRIAL. THE PROSECUTOR IMPROPERLY SUGGESTED THAT HEARSAY 

IDENTIFIED THE APPELLANT AS ONE OF THE BURGLARS. 

{¶ 16} “II. APPELLANT’S ATTORNEY’S FAILURE TO FILE A NOTICE OF ALIBI 

ONE WEEK PRIOR TO TRIAL, RESULTING IN THE EXCLUSION OF A CRUCIAL 

WITNESS’ TESTIMONY, CONSTITUTES INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL. 
Richland County App. Case No. 10CA130 6 

{¶ 17} “III. THE COURT BELOW ERRED PREJUDICIALLY AGAINST 

APPELLANT WHEN IT REFUSED TO ADMIT THE TESTIMONY OF CELLMATES OF 

CO-DEFENDANT, NEIL COPELAND.” 

I 

{¶ 18} Appellant, in his first assignment of error, argues that, due to prosecutorial 

misconduct, he was denied a fair trial. Appellant specifically contends that the 

prosecutor improperly suggested that hearsay testimony from Tyler Ward identified 

appellant as one of the burglars. 

{¶ 19} As is stated above, Ward testified that he received a phone call from 

someone that he knew named “Johnny” who provided him with the name “JR” as a 

possible suspect. After defense counsel objected to such testimony, arguing that it was 

hearsay, the following discussion took place on the record: 

{¶ 20} “SIDEBAR: 

{¶ 21} “MR. ROBINSON: This is one of those used for the truth of the matter 

asserted; however, it is how they ended up with the defendant’s name and started to 

looking (sic) in his direction. He got a call from Johnny Craft that this JR, Arlie Burns 

has been bragging about doing this. He goes back to the police officers and tells them 

and then - - 

{¶ 22} “THE COURT: Is Craft going to testify? 

{¶ 23} “MR. ROBINSON: I don’t think so. I don’t know. I haven’t listed him in the 

list of witnesses, so no. 

{¶ 24} “THE COURT: What do you propose he says? 
Richland County App. Case No. 10CA130 7 

{¶ 25} “MR. ROBINSON: Craft says that a guy named JR has bragged that he 

burglarized a young kid’s house around - - near the neighborhood. So Craft calls him 

and says, hey, I think this guy named JR did it. That’s how he gets the name of JR to 

tell the police. 

{¶ 26} “THE COURT: Okay. 

{¶ 27} “MR. RAKESTRAW: Double hearsay, no exception. 

{¶ 28} “THE COURT: What I don’t want you to do is to lead him to say what was 

said. You will be permitted and I would suggest that you lead him to get this done. Did 

you hear from someone that the defendant might have been... 

{¶ 29} “MR. ROBINSON: I will ask it that way. 

{¶ 30} “THE COURT: Something along that line. Therefore, he has an 

opportunity to explain why he did what he did next without hearsay.” Transcript at 57-

59. 

{¶ 31} Appellant then testified that someone gave him the name of J.R. or Arlie 

Burns as a possible suspect and that he relayed such information to the police. 

Appellant now maintains that such testimony was inadmissible hearsay and should 

have been excluded at trial. 

{¶ 32} The admission or exclusion of evidence rests in the sound discretion of 

the trial court. State v. Sage (1987), 31 Ohio St.3d 173, 180, 510 N.E.2d 343. As a 

general rule, all relevant evidence is admissible. Evid.R. 402. Our task is to look at the 

totality of the circumstances in the particular case and determine whether the trial court 

acted unreasonably, arbitrarily, or unconscionably in allowing the disputed evidence. 

See State v. Oman (Feb. 14, 2000), Stark No. 1999CA00027, 2000 WL 22219 
Richland County App. Case No. 10CA130 8 

{¶ 33} “Hearsay” is a statement, other than one made by the declarant while 

testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter 

asserted. Evid.R. 801(C). Hearsay is generally not admissible unless it falls within one 

of the recognized exceptions. Evid.R. 802; State v. Steffen (1987), 31 Ohio St.3d 111, 

119, 509 N.E.2d 383. 

{¶ 34} “The hearsay rule ... is premised on the theory that out-of-court statements 

are subject to particular hazards. The declarant might be lying; he might have 

misperceived the events which he relates; he might have faulty memory; his words 

might be misunderstood or taken out of context by the listener. And the ways in which 

these dangers are minimized for in-court statements-the oath, the witness' awareness of 

the gravity of the proceedings, the jury's ability to observe the witness' demeanor, and, 

most importantly, the right of the opponent to cross-examine-are generally absent for 

things said out of court.” Williamson v. United States (1994), 512 U.S. 594, 598,114 

S.Ct. 2431, 2434. 

{¶ 35} We need not disturb appellant's conviction if the trial court committed 

harmless error, however. See Crim.R. 52(A); State v. Perry, 101 Ohio St.3d 118, 2004-

Ohio-297, 802 N.E.2d 643, ¶ 15. Under this review, “[e]rror in the admission or 

exclusion of evidence in a criminal trial must be considered prejudicial unless the court 

can declare, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the error was harmless, and unless there 

is no reasonable possibility that the evidence, or the exclusion of evidence, may have 

contributed to the accused's conviction.” State v. Jones, Franklin App. No. 07AP-771, 

2008-Ohio-3565, ¶ 13, citing State v. Bayless (1976), 48 Ohio St.2d 73, 106, 357 

N.E.2d 1035, vacated on other grounds (1978), 438 U.S. 911, 98 S.Ct. 3135. 
Richland County App. Case No. 10CA130 9 

“‘Whether [the] error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt is not simply an inquiry 

into the sufficiency of the remaining evidence. Instead, the question is whether there is 

a reasonable possibility that the evidence complained of might have contributed to the 

conviction.’” (Bracketed word sic.) Id., quoting State v. Conway, 108 Ohio St.3d 214, 

2006-Ohio-791, 842 N.E.2d 996, ¶ 78. 

{¶ 36} We find that Tyler’s Ward’s testimony that he received a telephone call 

from someone, namely, Johnny Craft, providing him with the name J.R. or Arlie Burns 

as a possible suspect was not inadmissible hearsay because it was not asserted to 

prove the truth of the matter asserted-that appellant was involved in the burglary. We 

note that Johnny Craft did not testify at trial. Under Ohio law, statements which are not 

offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted but offered to explain a police officer's 

conduct while investigating a crime are not hearsay. State v. Cantlebarry (1990), 69 

Ohio App.3d 216, 221, 590 N.E.2d 342, citing State v. Thomas (1980), 61 Ohio St.2d 

223, 232, 400 N.E.2d 401. Rather, in this case, such testimony was offered to show 

how the police identified appellant as a possible suspect. 

{¶ 37} Moreover, assuming arguendo that such testimony was inadmissible 

hearsay, we find, upon our review of the record, that it was harmless error. As is stated 

above, Tyler Ward identified one of his assailants as a mixed race, stocky man who 

weighed a “good 250 pounds probably.” Transcript at 47. Robyn Debiew testified that 

the man who pushed her down was mixed race and was shorter and stockier than the 

white man who accompanied him. Both Ward and Robyn Debiew identified appellant at 

trial as one of the men involved in the burglary and indicated that they were sure that 
Richland County App. Case No. 10CA130 10 

the man was appellant. Both indicated that they were able to observe at least part of 

appellant’s face during the incident. 

{¶ 38} Testimony was also adduced that, during the burglary, Debiew was able to 

grab the hat off of the mixed race male who was involved in the burglary. Testing 

revealed the presence of Copeland’s DNA. At trial, Copeland testified that he provided 

the man with the hat and that the hat was his. During his interview with police, Copeland 

implicated appellant. As part of his plea agreement, Copeland pleaded guilty to an F-3 

burglary, which was an amended charge. At trial, Copeland, who was on probation for 

another offense, testified that his sentence was conditioned on his testifying truthfully in 

appellant’s case. When questioned by police after being implicated by Copeland, 

appellant initially denied involvement, but later admitted that he had driven Copeland to 

the scene. 

{¶ 39} After the State rested, appellant called Amanda Cline, his fiancée, as a 

witness. Cline testified that, on January 3, 2010, she saw Copeland pick up appellant 

from his mother’s house. She also testified that, on January 10, 2010, she was with 

appellant in Wooster, Ohio. However, Cline never conveyed such information to the 

police or prosecution until right before trial. 

{¶ 40} Based on the overwhelming evidence of appellant’s guilt, we find that the 

admission of Tyler Ward’s testimony about the alleged call from “Johnny” was harmless 

error. 

{¶ 41} Appellant’s first assignment of error is, therefore, overruled. 
Richland County App. Case No. 10CA130 11 

{¶ 42} 

II 

{¶ 43} Appellant, in his second assignment of error, argues that he received 

ineffective assistance of counsel. Appellant specifically maintains that his trial counsel 

was ineffective in failing to file a written Notice of Alibi one week prior to trial. 

{¶ 44} A claim of ineffective assistance of counsel requires a two-prong analysis. 

The first inquiry is whether counsel's performance fell below an objective standard of 

reasonable representation involving a substantial violation of any of defense counsel's 

essential duties to appellant. The second prong is whether the appellant was prejudiced 

by counsel's ineffectiveness. Lockhart v. Fretwell (1993), 506 U.S. 364, 113 S.Ct. 838; 

Strickland v. Washington (1984), 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052; State v. Bradley (1989), 

42 Ohio St.3d 136, 538 N.E.2d 373. In order to warrant a finding that trial counsel was 

ineffective, the petitioner must meet both the deficient performance and prejudice 

prongs of Strickland and Bradley. Knowles v. Mirzayance (2009), ––– U.S. ––––, 129 

S.Ct. 1411, 1419, 173 L.Ed.2d 251. We apply the Strickland test to all claims of 

ineffective assistance of counsel, both trial counsel, or appellate counsel. State v. 

Turner, Licking App. No.2006–CA–123, 2007–Ohio–4583; State v. Godfrey (Sept. 2, 

1999), Licking App. No. 97CA0155, 1999 WL 770253. 

{¶ 45} To show deficient performance, appellant must establish that “counsel's 

representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness.” Strickland v. 

Washington, 466 U.S. at 688, 104 S.Ct. at 2064. This requires showing that counsel 

made errors so serious that counsel was not functioning as the “counsel” guaranteed 

the defendant by the Sixth Amendment. Strickland v. Washington 466 U.S. at 687, 104 
Richland County App. Case No. 10CA130 12 

S.Ct. at 2064. Counsel also has a duty to bring to bear such skill and knowledge as will 

render the trial a reliable adversarial testing process. Strickland v. Washington 466 U.S. 

at 688, 104 S.Ct. 2052 at 2065. 

{¶ 46} Appellant must further demonstrate that he suffered prejudice from his 

counsel's performance. See Strickland, 466 U.S. at 691 (“An error by counsel, even if 

professionally unreasonable, does not warrant setting aside the judgment of a criminal 

proceeding if the error had no effect on the judgment”). To establish prejudice, “[t]he 

defendant must show that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's 

unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different. A 

reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the 

outcome.” Id. at 694. To prevail on his ineffective-assistance claim, appellant must 

show, therefore, that there is a “reasonable probability” that the trier of fact would not 

have found him guilty. 

{¶ 47} During the morning of trial, defense counsel indicated to the trial court that 

he intended to present alibi witnesses who would testify that appellant was in Wooster, 

Ohio on January 10, 2010. Defense counsel indicated that he had two alibi witnesses, 

one who was appellant’s fiancée, Amanda Cline, and the other an unnamed witness. 

Because appellant failed to file a written Notice of Alibi seven days prior to trial pursuant 

to Crim.R. 12.1, the trial court exercised its discretion and limited appellant to one alibi 

witness. Subsequently, Amanda Cline testified that appellant was with her in Wooster, 

Ohio on January 10, 2010, the date of the burglary. 

{¶ 48} Appellant did not proffer the testimony of the other alleged alibi witness. 

Absent a proffer, the substance of the alleged alibi witness’ proposed testimony is a 
Richland County App. Case No. 10CA130 13 

matter of sheer speculation, and in that event the record does not demonstrate that 

defense counsel performed deficiently by failing to call such witness to testify at trial. 

Without a showing of deficient performance, ineffective assistance of counsel is not 

demonstrated. Strickland v. Washington (1984), 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052; State v. 

Bradley (1989), 42 Ohio St.3d 136, 538 N.E.2d 373. 

{¶ 49} Based on the foregoing, appellant’s second assignment of error is 

overruled. 

III 

{¶ 50} Appellant, in his third assignment of error, contends that the trial court 

erred in refusing to admit testimony from cellmates of Neil Copeland. Appellant asserts 

that these two cellmates would have testified that Copeland indicated to them that he 

gave false testimony against appellant. 

{¶ 51} After the trial court refused to admit such testimony on the basis that it 

constituted hearsay and did not fall within any exceptions to the hearsay rule, appellant 

proffered the testimony of Dustin Grit and Concepcion Hernandez. Jr., Neil Copeland’s 

alleged cellmates. The following testimony was adduced when Grit was asked whether 

Copeland told him anything about the incident: 

{¶ 52} “A. Yes. He told me that he had - - him and one of his buddies had 

robbed Mr. Ward for some pills and that that’s why he was locked up. And I asked him 

why he was, uhm, who was with him, and he said one of his buddies. He said the 

detective from the case told him not to change the story, to keep it straight, and he told 

me that he had blamed it on Mr. Burns. 

{¶ 53} “Q. Did he mention the detective? 
Richland County App. Case No. 10CA130 14 

{¶ 54} “A. He didn’t say the name, no. 

{¶ 55} “Q. So, basically, so that I can understand and the court can understand, 

he said that he continued to blame Mr. Burns, because that was Tyler’s story, and he 

stuck to it? 

{¶ 56} “A. Yeah. Yeah. That was the original story, and he just stuck to it. He 

told me he didn’t - - 

{¶ 57} “Q. Did he say anything about who was with him? 

{¶ 58} “A. No. He didn’t say who was with him. He just said he didn’t want to 

involve the other person, because his name was never brought up. 

{¶ 59} “Q. Meaning it was never brought up in Tyler’s report or - - 

{¶ 60} “A. Right. 

{¶ 61} “Q. - - Robyn’s report? 

{¶ 62} “A. Right. 

{¶ 63} “Q. Did he say anything else? 

{¶ 64} “A. No. That was pretty much it.” Transcript at 275-276. 

{¶ 65} In turn, Concepcion testified that Copeland told him that when the police 

asked him who was with him, “the first person came to his head was JR. He said he 

didn’t want to tell on the person that was actually with him. And...he couldn’t change his 

story or whatever, but that JR wasn’t there with him.” Transcript at 280. Concepcion 

testified that Copeland said that he did not want to “rat on his other friend.” Transcript at 

281. 
Richland County App. Case No. 10CA130 15 

{¶ 66} Previously, the following testimony had been adduced when Copeland 

was asked, during cross-examination, whether he told anyone that he implicated 

appellant “primarily because Tyler had suggested that he was with you?” 

{¶ 67} “A. Say that again. 

{¶ 68} “Q. Did he ever tell anyone that the reason you implicated Arlie was that 

Tyler had implicated him and you just continued the story” 

{¶ 69} “A. I went along with it, but that was the truth. What Tyler knew was the 

truth. I went along with it. 

{¶ 70} “Q. I see. So what you’re telling me is that you knew what Tyler said? 

{¶ 71} “A. I wasn’t going to say a word. 

{¶ 72} “Q. Yeah. 

{¶ 73} “A. And because, you know, I was informed that, hey, Tyler already says it 

is this guy, JR. Well, you know what, yeah, it was. 

{¶ 74} “Q. And who did you tell that to? 

{¶ 75} “A. The detective. 

{¶ 76} “Q. Did you tell it to Concepcion Hernandez? 

{¶ 77} “A. I don’t know who that is. 

{¶ 78} “Q. How about Dustin Grit? 

{¶ 79} “A. I don’t know who that is either. 

{¶ 80} “Q. Were you ever in jail with either of those two? 

{¶ 81} “A. I was in jail. 

{¶ 82} “Q. Uhm-hum. 

{¶ 83} “A. I cannot recall neither of those names. 
Richland County App. Case No. 10CA130 16 

{¶ 84} “Q. When you were in jail, did you have what we would call bunk mates? 

{¶ 85} “A. Yes. 

{¶ 86} “Q. Uhm-hum. And who were your bunk mates? 

{¶ 87} “A. Uhm, nobody, uhm, nobody that wasn’t there more than a couple of 

days. 

{¶ 88} “Q. I see. And you don’t recall their names? 

{¶ 89} “A. No.” Transcript at 184-185. 

{¶ 90} Hearsay is defined as a statement, other than one made by the declarant 

while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter 

asserted. Evid .R. 801(C). Hearsay is not admissible unless it falls within one of the 

exceptions enumerated in the rules. 

{¶ 91} Appellant argues that the trial court erred in refusing to admit the 

testimony of Copeland’s cellmates because such testimony was admissible under 

Evid.R. 801(D)(2)(e). Evid.R. 801(D)(2)(e), provides that a statement of a co-conspirator 

is not hearsay when certain requirements are met. Specifically, the rule provides that 

“[a] statement is not hearsay if * * * [t]he statement is offered against a party and is * * * 

a statement by a co-conspirator of a party during the course and in furtherance of the 

conspiracy upon independent proof of the conspiracy.” The proponent of the statement 

must establish: (1) the existence of a conspiracy; (2) the defendant's participation in the 

conspiracy; (3) the declarant's participation in the conspiracy; (4) that the statement was 

made during the course of the conspiracy; and (5) that the statement was in furtherance 

of the conspiracy. State v. Milo (1982), 6 Ohio App.3d 19, 451 N.E.2d 1253. 
Richland County App. Case No. 10CA130 17 

{¶ 92} A conspiracy does not necessarily end with the commission of the crime. 

State v. Siller, Cuyahoga App. No. 80219, 2003-Ohio-1948, at paragraph 28, citing 

State v. Shelton (1977), 51 Ohio St.2d 68, 364 N.E.2d 1152. A statement made by a 

co-conspirator after the crime may be admissible under Evid.R. 801(D)(2)(e) if it was 

made in an effort to conceal the crime. Id.

{¶ 93} We find that the statements that Neil Copeland allegedly made, while in 

jail, to his cellmates did not fall within the hearsay exception contained Evid.R. 

801(D)(2)(e). Such statements were not made during the course and in furtherance of 

any alleged conspiracy and were not made in an effort to conceal the crime. 

{¶ 94} Appellant also contends that such statements were admissions against 

interest and were admissible under Evid.R. 804(B)(3). Evid.R. 804 states, in relevant 

part, as follows: “(B) Hearsay exceptions “The following are not excluded by the hearsay 

rule if the declarant is unavailable as a witness:...“(3) Statement against interest. A 

statement that was at the time of its making so far contrary to the declarant's pecuniary 

or proprietary interest, or so far tended to subject the declarant to civil or criminal 

liability, or to render invalid a claim by the declarant against another, that a reasonable 

person in the declarant's position would not have made the statement unless the 

declarant believed it to be true. A statement tending to expose the declarant to criminal 

liability, whether offered to exculpate or inculpate the accused, is not admissible unless 

corroborating circumstances clearly indicate the truthworthiness of the statement.” 

(Emphasis added). 

{¶ 95} In the case sub judice, the declarant, Neil Copeland, clearly was not 

unavailable. He testified at trial and was subject to cross-examination. He, therefore, 
Richland County App. Case No. 10CA130 18 

cannot be deemed unavailable for purposes of Evid.R. 804(B)(3). Such exception, 

therefore, is not applicable. 

{¶ 96} The next issue for determination is whether or not Copeland’s alleged 

statements to Grit and Concepcion were admissible under Evid. R. 613 for 

impeachment purposes. Evid. R. 613(B), captioned “Extrinsic evidence of prior 

inconsistent statement of witness,” permits impeachment of self-contradictory 

statements and the use of extrinsic evidence to so impeach. State v. Francis (Feb. 23, 

2000), Guernsey App. No. 98CA24, 2000 WL 221947. The rule reads as follows: 

“Extrinsic evidence of a prior inconsistent statement by a witness is admissible if both of 

the following apply: 

{¶ 97} “(1) If the statement is offered solely for the purpose of impeaching the 

witness, the witness is afforded a prior opportunity to explain or deny the statement and 

the opposite party is afforded an opportunity to interrogate the witness on the statement 

or the interests of justice otherwise require; 

{¶ 98} “(2) The subject matter of the statement is one of the following: 

{¶ 99} “(a) A fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action other 

than the credibility of a witness; 

{¶100} “(b) A fact that may be shown by extrinsic evidence under Evid.R. 608(A), 

609, 616(B) or 706; 

{¶101} “(c) A fact that may be shown by extrinsic evidence under the common law 

of impeachment if not in conflict with the Rules of Evidence.” 

{¶ 102} Upon our review of the record, we find that the statements of Grit 

and Concepcion were admissible under Evid.R. 613(B) to impeach Copeland. While 
Richland County App. Case No. 10CA130 19 

Copeland testified that he implicated appellant because Tyler Ward had implicated 

appellant and because it was the truth, Grit testified that Copeland told him that “he 

didn’t want to involve the other person, because his name was never brought up.” 

Transcript at 276. Clearly, such other person was not appellant. 

{¶ 103} In turn, Concepcion testified that Copeland told him that appellant 

was not with him at the time of the burglary. We find that both statements contradicted 

Copeland’s testimony at trial and should have been admitted to impeach Copeland’s 

prior inconsistent statement. 

{¶ 104} We find that the trial court abused its discretion in excluding the 

testimony of Grit and Concepcion as to what Copeland allegedly had told them while in 

jail. 

{¶ 105} Appellant’s third assignment of error is, therefore, sustained. 

{¶ 106} Accordingly, the judgment of the Richland County Court of 

Common Pleas is reversed and this matter is remanded to the trial court for further 

proceedings. 

By: Edwards, J. 

Gwin, P.J. concurs and 

Farmer, J. dissents 

______________________________ 

______________________________ 

______________________________ 

 JUDGES 
Richland County App. Case No. 10CA130 20 

Farmer, J., dissents 

{¶106}I respectfully dissent from the majority's decision in Assignment of Error III 

because pursuant to Evid.R. 613(B), I find Copeland was not afforded a prior 

opportunity to explain or deny his statements. Copeland's direct and cross-examination 

do not rise to the level of providing an opportunity as he was not questioned on specific 

statements he made to his cellmates. I would find the foundation falls short of the 

mandates required by Evid.R.613(B). State v. Theuring (1988), 46 Ohio App.3d 152, 

155. Copeland was not afforded a clear prior opportunity to explain or deny the alleged 

statements made to Grit and Hernandez. 

{¶107}I would deny Assignment of Error III. 

 ________________________________ 

 HON. SHEILA G. FARMER 
[Cite as State v. Burns, 2011-Ohio-5926.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR RICHLAND COUNTY, OHIO 

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

THE STATE OF OHIO, : 

 : 

 Appellee, : 

 : 

 : 

v. : JUDGMENT ENTRY 

 : 

ARLIE BURNS, : 

 : 

 Appellant. : CASE NO. 10CA130 

 For the reasons stated in our accompanying Memorandum-Opinion on file, the 

judgment of the Richland County Court of Common Pleas is reversed and this matter is 

remanded to the trial court for further proceedings. Costs assessed to the appellee. 

 _________________________________ 

 _________________________________ 

 _________________________________ 

 JUDGES