State v. Sullivan
2025-Ohio-643 (2025)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Double Jeopardy Clause's collateral estoppel principle does not bar a retrial on counts where a jury was hung, even if the jury acquitted the defendant on other counts arising from the same incident, unless the defendant proves that the acquittals necessarily decided an ultimate issue of fact that is essential to proving the remaining counts.
Facts:
- Khayree Sullivan was driving a vehicle with codefendant Kameren White and another passenger, Marvin Bell.
- They drove past E.S., who was pushing his six-month-old daughter, K.L., in a stroller, while the child's mother, G.L., walked ahead of them.
- Sullivan made a U-turn, stopped the vehicle alongside E.S., and a verbal altercation began.
- During the altercation, Sullivan and White believed E.S. was reaching for a firearm in his cross-body bag; E.S. testified he was putting his phone and Airpods into the bag.
- Sullivan retrieved a firearm from his vehicle and fired toward E.S., and White also discharged his firearm.
- E.S. fled, pushing the stroller down the street and into a driveway, and was shot as he ran.
- G.L., who had already fled, grabbed the stroller from E.S. and discovered that her child, K.L., had been shot.
- The defense presented evidence of additional gunfire recorded by a Ring Doorbell camera as Sullivan's vehicle fled, arguing it came from E.S.
Procedural Posture:
- The State of Ohio indicted Khayree Sullivan on eight counts in the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas, a trial court.
- The case proceeded to a joint jury trial.
- After deliberations, the jury announced it had reached a verdict on some counts but was deadlocked on others.
- The trial court issued a 'Howard charge,' instructing the jury to continue deliberating.
- The jury returned not guilty verdicts for Sullivan on Counts 1, 2, and 7.
- The jury remained 'hopelessly deadlocked' on Counts 3, 4, 5, 6, and 8, prompting the court to declare a mistrial on those counts.
- The State announced its intent to retry Sullivan on the five hung counts.
- Sullivan filed a motion to dismiss the remaining charges, arguing a retrial would violate his double jeopardy rights.
- The trial court denied Sullivan's motion to dismiss.
- Sullivan, as appellant, appealed the trial court's denial of his motion to the Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth Appellate District, with the State of Ohio as appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Double Jeopardy Clause, through the doctrine of collateral estoppel, bar the State from retrying a defendant on counts where the jury was hung, when the jury also acquitted the defendant on other distinct counts arising from the same criminal incident?
Opinions:
Majority - Keough, J.
No, the Double Jeopardy Clause does not bar the State from retrying the defendant on the hung counts. A retrial is permissible because the defendant failed to meet his burden of demonstrating that the jury's acquittals on certain counts necessarily decided an ultimate issue of fact that would preclude conviction on the remaining counts. The court reasoned that a rational jury, following instructions to consider each count separately, could have acquitted Sullivan on counts related to victims E.S. and G.L. for various reasons other than a blanket acceptance of his self-defense claim. For example, the jury could have found the State failed to prove the specific element of 'serious physical harm' for E.S., or it could have determined self-defense was justified against E.S. initially, but not for the continued shooting that endangered K.L. Because the acquittals did not logically foreclose guilt on the distinct charges involving K.L. or the different degrees of harm, collateral estoppel does not apply.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the high burden a defendant faces when invoking collateral estoppel to prevent a retrial after a mixed verdict of acquittals and a hung jury. It clarifies that courts will not speculate about a jury's reasoning for an acquittal; the defendant must demonstrate that the acquittal could only have been based on a factual finding that is also an essential element of the charges to be retried. The ruling preserves the state's ability to retry a defendant following a mistrial due to a hung jury, limiting the application of collateral estoppel to cases where the factual issue was unambiguously and necessarily resolved in the defendant's favor.
