State v. Thompson (141 Ohio St. 3d 254, 2014)

FRENCH, J.

{¶ 1} This is an appeal as of right by appellant, Ashford L. Thompson, who has been sentenced to death for the aggravated murder of Twinsburg Police Officer Joshua Miktarian. For the reasons below, we affirm Thompson’s convictions and sentence.

I. BACKGROUND

{¶ 2} Following the murder of Officer Miktarian, the state charged Thompson with two counts of aggravated murder under R.C. 2903.01(B) and (E). Each count carried three death specifications: purposely killing a law-enforcement officer, R.C. 2929.04(A)(6), killing to escape detection, R.C. 2929.04(A)(3), and killing while under detention, R.C. 2929.04(A)(4). The state also charged Thompson with two counts of escape, two counts of resisting arrest, three counts of tampering with evidence, and one count of carrying a concealed weapon. Every count of the indictment also carried at least one firearm specification.

{¶ 3} Thompson’s jury trial commenced in 2010.

A. The State’s Case in Chief

1. Rav’s Bar

{¶ 4} A little after midnight on July 13, 2008, Thompson picked up his girlfriend, Danielle Roberson, and they drove to Rav’s Creekside Tap and Grill (“Rav’s Bar”). The bartender, John Jira, recognized Thompson as a regular customer who typically ordered one beer and never caused trouble. That night, Jira served Thompson a single Budweiser draft at 12:30 or 1:00 a.m.

{¶ 5} Rav’s Bar patron Steven Bartz testified that he saw a woman and a man, whom he later identified as Thompson, sitting at the bar that night. He said he had heard Thompson making angry comments. According to Bartz, Thompson was drinking a beer, was “slamming his glass on the bar,” and “was pretty drunk.” Bartz heard Thompson say to his companion, “There’s demons in me” and “I will kill any one f* * *er that threatens me.” Bartz also testified that Thompson said, “Nobody understands the s* * * I’ve done and am capable of doing. I can’t even talk about it.”

2. Traffic Stop

{¶ 6} Around 1:50 a.m. on July 13, Miktarian was en route to the Twinsburg police station. He was wearing a police uniform and driving a marked police cruiser. His police dog, Bagio, was with him.

{¶ 7} Miktarian began following Thompson’s car near the intersection of State Route 91 and Glenwood Drive. Another driver, Natalie Spagnolo, testified that she saw a police cruiser turn on its lights and follow a car onto Glenwood Drive that night. The car was playing music so loudly that she could hear it over her own loud music even though her windows were up.

{¶ 8} At about 1:55 a.m., Miktarian called dispatch to report a traffic stop at a residence on “Glenwood near 91.” Thompson had pulled into his driveway on Glenwood, and Miktarian pulled into the driveway behind him. Miktarian provided the license plate number — “ITNL.” Approximately two minutes later, he requested backup.

{¶ 9} The dispatcher, Christine Franco, ran the license-plate number on the Law Enforcement Data System at 1:55 a.m. Her search revealed that the owner of the vehicle had a license to carry a concealed firearm. Moments after Miktarian requested backup, Franco reported, “The only thing I know is he has a — he has a right to carry.” Miktarian did not respond.

{¶ 10} Officer Patrick Quinn heard Miktarian’s backup request over the radio and “figur[ed] something was possibly wrong.” He responded, asking Miktarian “what he had.” Miktarian did not answer, so Quinn “ran to [his] cruiser and then left the station with [his] lights and sirens activated.”

{¶ 11} Moments later, the dispatcher received a phone call from Thompson’s next-door neighbor, Mary Spisak. Around 2:00 a.m., Spisak woke to the sound of yelling outside her open window. She heard five popping sounds and called to report “shooting and arguing in the next-door neighbor’s yard.” The dispatcher relayed this information to Miktarian, but he still did not respond.

{¶ 12} Three other witnesses testified that they had heard popping sounds near 2454 Glenwood Drive around the same time. Two of the witnesses, Douglas Szymanski and Joseph Werling, were stopped in a car at the intersection of State Route 91 and Glenwood Drive when they saw the lights of a police cruiser 200 to 300 feet away and heard four gunshots. They drove onto Glenwood and saw a police cruiser parked in a driveway with its overhead lights on.

{¶ 13} Officers quickly arrived at the scene. Officer Quinn arrived first and saw Miktarian’s cruiser with its lights on, but no other vehicles. Another officer arrived and saw Miktarian on the ground next to his cruiser. Miktarian had no vital signs when emergency medical services arrived.

{¶ 14} Thompson’s driver’s license and insurance card were in Miktarian’s front shirt pocket.

3. Thompson’s Arrest

{¶ 15} Twinsburg police enlisted the assistance of other local law enforcement to locate Thompson. Around 2:00 a.m., the Bedford Heights Police Department received notice that Thompson had a prior address in their jurisdiction, on Cambridge Drive. Three officers went to investigate.

{¶ 16} Around 2:20 a.m., Sergeant David Sandoval, Officer Anthony Vanek, and Officer Kimberly Callieham arrived at the Cambridge Drive address. They saw three people — two women and one man — standing in the driveway. Vanek also saw a vehicle with the license plate “ITNL” parked inside an open garage at the top of the driveway.

{¶ 17} Vanek began to question one of the women, Bridget Robinson, and she said that she was Thompson’s sister. While Vanek was inquiring about Thompson’s whereabouts, he heard a loud disturbance inside the house. He realized that the other woman, later identified as Danielle Roberson, had left the driveway.

{¶ 18} Vanek approached the house and opened the screen door; the main door was already open. He saw a man — later identified as Thompson — who had a pair of handcuffs hanging off his right wrist. Vanek confronted Thompson in the kitchen, and a struggle ensued. One officer seized a Kel-Tec 9 mm handgun from the stovetop, and another arrested Thompson and took him into custody.

4. Physical Evidence

{¶ 19} At booking, Sergeant Greg Feketik photographed Thompson, his clothes and shoes, a small cut on his wrist, and the handcuffs he was wearing, which were marked with Miktarian’s badge number. Later forensic testing confirmed the presence of blood with a DNA profile consistent with Miktarian’s DNA profile on Thompson’s left shoe, watchband, and shirt and on the barrel of the recovered gun.

{¶ 20} Dr. Darin Trelka, then a deputy coroner for Cuyahoga County, performed an autopsy on July 14, 2008. Trelka classified Miktarian’s death as a homicide and determined that he died from four gunshot wounds to the head.

{¶ 21} Officers from the crime-scene unit photographed and documented the scene at Glenwood Drive and collected evidence. They recovered three spent bullets, and the medical examiner recovered a fourth bullet from Miktarian’s skull during the autopsy.

{¶ 22} On the driveway, the crime-scene-unit officers found a pair of Miktari-an’s handcuffs and his Taser, which had been activated but not fired. Miktarian’s handgun was still in a triple-retention holster on his duty belt.

{¶ 23} Officers also recovered a broken liquor bottle next to the sidewalk in front of Thompson’s house. Two officers observed, but did not collect, a small, yellowish-grey, chewed-up food substance on the driveway. They later believed that the substance was garlic, because a search of Thompson’s car uncovered a baggie containing garlic cloves. Detective Jason Kline explained that sometimes persons who have been drinking chew garlic when talking to police to cover the odor of alcohol on their breath.

{¶ 24} Inside Thompson’s home, officers found a receipt documenting his purchase of a Kel-Tec 9 mm handgun. The serial number of the gun listed on the receipt matched the number on the gun found at the house on Cambridge Drive, and subsequent ballistics testing confirmed that the spent bullets and shell casings recovered from the crime scene had been fired from that gun.

B. The Defense’s Case

{¶ 25} At trial, the defense presented one witness, Danielle Roberson. Roberson testified that at the time of the shooting, she had been dating Thompson for approximately two years.

{¶ 26} According to Roberson, on July 13, Thompson and his friend picked her up at her mother’s house a little after midnight. After dropping off Thompson’s friend, Thompson and Roberson went to Rav’s Bar. Roberson testified that Thompson drank one-half of a beer. She did not recall Thompson being angry or consuming any additional alcohol that night.

{¶ 27} The couple left the bar and headed toward Thompson’s house. At the intersection of State Route 91 and Glenwood Drive, Roberson saw a police cruiser to the right. When the light turned green, Thompson turned left and drove the short distance to his driveway. Roberson said she saw the officer make a U-turn as Thompson’s car turned the corner, but the cruiser’s overhead lights were not on. According to Roberson, the officer pulled into the driveway behind Thompson’s car and then turned his lights on.

{¶ 28} Roberson testified that she and Thompson started to get out of the car but then saw the officer approaching, so they stayed in the car. She said that the officer asked Thompson, “[W]hy are you running through my city with all that boom, boom, boom. I ought to rip all this s* * * out of your car.” The officer then indicated that he had been following Thompson for two and one-half miles and asked why he had not stopped. The officer took Thompson’s driver’s license and insurance card and asked whether he had had anything to drink.

{¶ 29} It is not clear from Roberson’s testimony when Thompson got out of the car, but he did at some point. According to Roberson, the officer “slapped” a handcuff on Thompson’s wrist and Thompson somehow ended up on the ground. Roberson testified that the officer threatened to let the dog out if Thompson tried anything and reached for his belt. Then he “slammed” Thompson onto the hood of the cruiser, over the side fender. As Roberson turned away, she saw the officer reach to his right side. The officer was right behind Thompson. Roberson saw Thompson turn around and shoot the officer. The officer fell. Roberson could no longer see what was happening, because the car was blocking her view, but she heard two more shots. Later in her testimony, she said that Thompson was standing over the officer when he fired those two shots.

{¶ 30} According to Roberson, Thompson told her to get back in the car, and they drove to his sister’s home. Officers later arrived at Thompson’s sister’s house and tackled Thompson in the kitchen. During the struggle, Thompson tore off the refrigerator door. Ultimately, officers handcuffed Thompson.

C. The State’s Rebuttal

{¶ 31} The state recalled Detective Kline to the stand in rebuttal. Kline testified that he had listened to recordings of Thompson’s jailhouse phone conversations with Roberson. The prosecution played the recording of a May 3, 2009 conversation between Thompson and Roberson. On the recording, Thompson explained that he had been “pissed” the night of Miktarian’s death because Roberson had been “half dressed” when he and a friend arrived to pick her up. Thompson had just returned from a trip and was tired, and Roberson had been calling all day asking to see him.

D. Verdict and Sentencing

{¶ 32} After a five-day trial, a jury convicted Thompson of both aggravated-murder counts and all associated specifications. Thompson was also convicted of escape, resisting arrest, tampering with evidence, and carrying a concealed weapon. The trial court dismissed one of the escape counts pursuant to Crim.R. 29.

{¶ 33} The trial court merged the two aggravated-murder convictions and two of the three death specifications for the mitigation hearing and sentencing. After the mitigation hearing, the jury unanimously recommended a sentence of death. The court agreed with the jury’s recommendation and sentenced Thompson to death for one count of aggravated murder, R.C. 2903.01(E), with two death specifications — purposely killing a police officer, R.C. 2929.04(A)(6), and killing to escape detection, R.C. 2929.04(A)(3). The trial court also merged the three counts of tampering with evidence.

{¶ 34} The court imposed the following sentences for the remaining counts, with all sentences to be served concurrently with each other, except the terms for the firearm specifications: seven years for the merged firearm specifications, to be served consecutively to the other sentences, 12 months for escape, 18 months for felony resisting arrest, 90 days for misdemeanor resisting arrest, five years for tampering with evidence, and 12 months for carrying a concealed weapon.

{¶ 35} Thompson now appeals his conviction for aggravated murder and his death sentence, raising 18 propositions of law. We address some of Thompson’s propositions of law out of order.

II. ANALYSIS

A. Final, Appealable Order

{¶ 36} In proposition of law No. I, Thompson challenges this court’s jurisdiction to hear his appeal because, he claims, the trial court failed to issue a final, appealable order in compliance with Crim.R. 32(C). We conclude that the trial court complied with Crim.R. 32(C) and that this court has jurisdiction to hear Thompson’s appeal.

1. Crim.R. 32(C)

{¶ 37} This court lacks jurisdiction over orders that are not final and appeal-able. See Ohio Constitution, Article IV, Section 3(B)(2); R.C. 2953.02.

{¶ 38} Crim.R. 32(C) prescribes the requirements for a final, appealable order in a criminal case. The rule in effect at the time of Thompson’s conviction stated:

A judgment of conviction shall set forth the plea, the verdict, or findings, upon which each conviction is based, and the sentence. Multiple judgments of conviction may be addressed in one judgment entry. If the defendant is found not guilty or for any other reason is entitled to be discharged, the court shall render judgment accordingly. The judge shall sign the judgment and the clerk shall enter it on the journal. A judgment is effective only when entered on the journal by the clerk.

Former Crim.R. 32(C) (2009), 122 Ohio St.3d c. Accordingly, we held that “a judgment of conviction is a final order subject to appeal under R.C. 2505.02 when the judgment entry sets forth (1) the fact of the conviction, (2) the sentence, (3) the judge’s signature, and (4) the time stamp indicating the entry upon the journal by the clerk.” State v. Lester, 130 Ohio St.3d 303, 2011-Ohio-5204, 958 N.E.2d 142, at ¶ 14.

{¶ 39} As a general matter, “[o]nly one document can constitute a final appealable order,” meaning that a single entry must satisfy the requirements of Crim.R. 32(C). State v. Baker, 119 Ohio St.3d 197, 2008-Ohio-3330, 893 N.E.2d 163, at ¶ 17. There is, however, an exception for capital cases, in which R.C. 2929.03(F) requires the court or panel to file a sentencing opinion. State v. Ketterer, 126 Ohio St.3d 448, 2010-Ohio-3831, 935 N.E.2d 9, syllabus and ¶ 17-18. In those cases, “a final, appealable order consists of both the sentencing opinion filed pursuant to R.C. 2929.03(F) and the judgment of conviction filed pursuant to Crim.R. 32(C).” (Emphasis added.) Id. at syllabus.

2. The Trial Court’s Orders

{¶ 40} On June 23, 2010, the trial court issued a sentencing opinion, as R.C. 2929.03(F) requires. In the opinion, the court sentenced Thompson to death on the capital count and also imposed sentences for the noncapital counts. That opinion was signed by the judge and journalized. The trial court also filed a separate entry on June 24, 2010, recording the jury’s verdict finding Thompson guilty of 26 counts and specifications. That entry was likewise signed by the judge and journalized. Together, those two documents comply with the requirements of Crim.R. 32(C) and thus constitute a final, appealable order. See Ketterer at ¶ 17.

{¶ 41} Thompson does not dispute that these documents, if valid, satisfy the four requirements for a final, appealable order. Instead, he argues that we cannot even look to these documents to evaluate their compliance with Crim.R. 32(C) because (1) the entry filed on June 24 was replaced by a subsequent nunc pro tunc entry and (2) the sentencing opinion contained an error. Both arguments fail.

{¶ 42} First, Thompson argues that when a nunc pro tunc entry corrects an earlier entry, it entirely replaces the original entry. In this case, the trial court’s June 24 entry mistakenly stated that Thompson’s “sentencing hearing commenced on June 10, 2006.” The sentencing hearing actually began on June 10, 2010. On July 1, 2010, the trial court entered a nunc pro tunc entry to change the erroneous date in the June 24 entry. Thompson says we can look only to the nunc pro tunc entry, and not to the June 24 entry, to evaluate compliance with Crim.R. 32(C).

{¶ 43} Thompson’s argument misconstrues the nature of a nunc pro tunc entry. As we recently explained in Lester, 130 Ohio St.3d 303, 2011-Ohio-5204, 958 N.E.2d 142, the phrase “ ‘[n]une pro tunc’ * * * is commonly defined as ‘[hjaving retroactive legal effect through a court’s inherent power.’ ” Id. at ¶ 19, quoting Black’s Law Dictionary 1174 (9th Ed.2009). Therefore, “a nunc pro tunc entry by its very nature applies retrospectively to the judgment it corrects.” Id. But a nunc pro tunc entry does not replace the original judgment entry; it relates back to the original entry. Thus, we need not disregard the trial court’s June 24 entry.

{¶ 44} Second, Thompson claims that there is no final, appealable order here because the trial court’s June 23 sentencing opinion contains an error. The opinion sentenced Thompson on Count 3 (third-degree felony escape), despite the fact that the court had previously dismissed that count. In the opinion, the court purported to merge Count 3 with Count 4 (fifth-degree felony escape) and then sentenced Thompson to five years on the two merged counts. This five-year sentence would have been appropriate for Count 3, but it exceeded the maximum 12-month punishment permitted for Count 4 alone. See R.C. 2929.14(A)(5) (authorizing a maximum sentence of 12 months’ imprisonment for a fifth-degree felony) and 2929.14(A)(3) (authorizing a maximum sentence of five years’ imprisonment for a third-degree felony). Because Thompson should have been sentenced only on Count 4, not on Count 3, he could not have been sentenced to the five-year sentence the court imposed.

{¶ 45} Contrary to Thompson’s claims, the trial court’s mistaken reference to a five-year sentence in the June 23 sentencing opinion does not deprive this court of jurisdiction over this appeal. “[Sentencing errors are not jurisdictional.” Manns v. Gansheimer, 117 Ohio St.3d 251, 2008-Ohio-851, 883 N.E.2d 431, ¶ 6 (holding that extraordinary writs are not available to remedy sentencing errors). Instead, sentencing errors can be remedied on appeal in the ordinary course of law. State ex rel. Davis v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 127 Ohio St.3d 29, 2010-Ohio-4728, 936 N.E.2d 41, ¶ 2 (the erroneous inclusion of postre-lease control in a sentencing entry can be remedied on appeal).

{¶ 46} To determine the appropriate remedy here, we need only look to the trial court’s entries. Although the June 23 sentencing opinion mistakenly referred to Count 3 and a five-year sentence for escape, the trial court’s June 24 journal entry eliminated these erroneous references. The June 24 entry states that for the crime of escape, Thompson is sentenced to only 12 months, and only on Count J. The entry removes any reference to a five-year sentence for escape and contains no sentence whatsoever for Count 3. The record therefore clearly indicates that for the crime of escape, the trial court intended to impose a 12-month sentence on a single fifth-degree-felony count. Accordingly, this is the only escape sentence that applies to Thompson.

{¶ 47} In sum, we may properly consider both the trial court’s June 24 entry and its sentencing opinion to evaluate compliance with Crim.R. 32(C). These two documents satisfy the requirements for a final, appealable order, and thus we do have jurisdiction over Thompson’s appeal. We also address the error in the June 23 sentencing opinion by clarifying that Thompson is subject to only a 12-month sentence for escape, in accordance with the trial court’s intent as expressed in its June 24 entry.

B. Juror Issues

1. Batson Challenge

{¶ 48} In proposition of law No. II, Thompson argues that the prosecution excused prospective juror No. 6 because of her race, in violation of Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986). According to Thompson, the trial court erred by overruling his objection to the state’s peremptory challenge. We disagree.

a. Batson v. Kentucky

{¶ 49} A defendant has “the right to be tried by a jury whose members are selected pursuant to nondiscriminatory criteria.” Id. at 85-86. Accordingly, a constitutional violation occurs when the prosecution challenges “potential jurors solely on account of their race or on the assumption that black jurors as a group ■will be unable impartially to consider the State’s case against a black defendant.” Id. at 89; see also Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

{¶ 50} In Batson, the United States Supreme Court established a three-step test for adjudicating race-based challenges. See id. at 96. “First, the opponent of the peremptory challenge must make a prima facie case of racial discrimination.” State v. Bryan, 101 Ohio St.3d 272, 2004-Ohio-971, 804 N.E.2d 433, ¶ 106.

{¶ 51} If the opponent satisfies that burden, then “the burden shifts to the State to come forward with a neutral explanation for challenging black jurors.” Batson at 97. “At this step of the inquiry, the issue is the facial validity of the prosecutor’s explanation.” Hernandez v. New York, 500 U.S. 352, 360, 111 S.Ct. 1859, 114 L.Ed.2d 395 (1991). Although it is not enough to simply deny a discriminatory motive or assert good faith, Batson, 476 U.S. at 98, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69, the “explanation need not rise to the level justifying exercise of a challenge for cause,” id. at 97. See also State v. White, 85 Ohio St.3d 433, 437, 709 N.E.2d 140 (1999). Accordingly, “ ‘[ujnless a discriminatory intent is inherent in the prosecutor’s explanation, the reason offered will be deemed race neutral.’ ” Burkett v. Elem, 514 U.S. 765, 768, 115 S.Ct. 1769, 131 L.Ed.2d 834 (1995), quoting Hernandez at 360.

{¶ 52} Finally, “the trial court must decide based on all the circumstances, whether the opponent has proved purposeful racial discrimination.” Bryan at ¶ 106; see also Batson at 98. The court must “assess the plausibility of’ the prosecutor’s reason for striking the juror “in light of all evidence with a bearing on it.” Miller-El v. Dretke, 545 U.S. 231, 252, 125 S.Ct. 2317, 162 L.Ed.2d 196 (2005). Relevant factors may include “the prosecutor’s demeanor; * * * how reasonable, or how improbable, the explanations are; and * * * whether the proffered rationale has some basis in accepted trial strategy.” Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 339, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). “In addition, race-neutral reasons for peremptory challenges often invoke a juror’s demeanor * * *, making the trial court’s firsthand observations of even greater importance.” Snyder v. Louisiana, 552 U.S. 472, 477, 128 S.Ct. 1203, 170 L.Ed.2d 175 (2008).

{¶ 53} The trial court’s finding at step three “is entitled to deference, since it turns largely ‘on evaluation of credibility.’ ” White at 437, quoting Batson at 98, fn. 21. Accordingly, “[a] trial court’s findings of no discriminatory intent will not be reversed on appeal unless clearly erroneous.” Bryan, 101 Ohio St.3d 272, 2004-Ohio-971, 804 N.E.2d 433, at ¶ 106; see also Cockrell at 340. If, however, a trial court does err in applying Batson, the error is structural. See United States v. McFerron, 163 F.3d 952, 955-956 (6th Cir.1998) (cataloging federal appeals courts that have unanimously and “resoundingly” rejected arguments that Batson errors are subject to harmless-error review).

b. Voir Dire and Dismissal of Prospective Juror No. 6

{¶ 54} During individual voir dire, the parties questioned prospective juror No. 6, an African-American, about her prior service as a juror in a criminal trial. Defense counsel inquired about the verdict in the prior case, and prospective juror No. 6 stated, “It was a hung jury.” Defense counsel did not ask further questions on the matter.

{¶ 55} Later, the prosecutor asked what he called “follow-up question^]” about the hung jury. He specifically inquired whether prospective juror No. 6 had been the holdout:

MR. LOPRINZI: Were you — you were one side and some — the way you stated that, it sounded like maybe you were the—

[PROSPECTIVE] JUROR SIX: There was one juror.

MR. LOPRINZI: Who was holding out?

[PROSPECTIVE] JUROR SIX: Yes.

MR. LOPRINZI: And you were with the others?

[PROSPECTIVE] JUROR SIX: Am I supposed to say?

MR. LOPRINZI: It’s up to you.

THE COURT: It’s up to you. The issue that he’s really getting at is, you know, will that in any way affect — •

[PROSPECTIVE] JUROR SIX: No.

THE COURT: Whether you were the one or you were the other 11— with the other 11.

MR. LOPRINZI: Well, we want to also know if you were in a jury here and you’re one way for guilt or innocence either way, are you willing to stand up for your ground? And so that’s why I was asking. It’s hard to do, and that’s why I was curious if you’re able to do that.

Were you the one who—

[PROSPECTIVE] JUROR SIX: I think he had some extenuating circumstances.

MR. LOPRINZI: Very good. Thank you.

The prosecutor later used a peremptory challenge to excuse prospective juror No. 6. Thompson immediately made a Batson challenge.

{¶ 56} The state offered two race-neutral explanations for challenging the prospective juror. First, the prosecutor explained that he wanted to excuse prospective juror No. 6 because she had “implied that she was the sole holdout” when serving as a juror in a prior criminal trial. He reasoned that although seven of the 50 prospective jurors examined that day had previously served on a criminal-trial jury, prospective juror No. 6 was the only one who had been on a jury that had not reached a verdict, and she appeared to have been the sole holdout.

{¶ 57} The prosecutor and judge then discussed whether prospective juror No. 6 had in fact indicated that she had been a holdout. The prosecutor opined, “I think everybody knew that.” Initially, the trial judge disagreed, emphasizing, “We don’t know” because “[w]e didn’t ask.” The judge asked the prosecutor if he had another reason for challenging the prospective juror.

{¶ 58} At this point, the prosecutor offered an alternative explanation: prospective juror No. 6 worked as a receptionist for the sheriffs department and one of her relatives had worked at the prosecutor’s office. The judge expressed skepticism that the state would object to seating a juror because of her connections with these two offices and declined to accept this reason.

{¶ 59} The prosecutor then returned to the holdout explanation, citing it as the “main reason” for the peremptory challenge. He elaborated on why “it was very clear to me that [prospective juror No. 6] was saying that she was the [holdout].” According to the prosecutor, when he asked the prospective juror whether she was the holdout, she “kind of smiled like she was the holdout,” and he had the impression “that she just didn’t want to say it.” The prosecutor did not want to force the prospective juror to answer the question directly because he did not want a potential juror to resent him. But he was firmly convinced that she had been the holdout.

{¶ 60} After probing the prosecutor’s reasoning, the judge stated, “You’re saying that you have come to the conclusion, the firm conclusion, that she was a holdout juror.” The judge acknowledged that the reason was race-neutral and explained that she had to decide whether the reason was “credible or pretextual.” Ultimately, the judge rejected Thompson’s Batson challenge, and prospective juror No. 6 was excused.

c. The Trial Court Complied with Batson

{¶ 61} Thompson argues that the trial court’s Batson analysis was improper and that the dismissal of prospective juror No. 6 violated his constitutional rights. But our review of the record confirms that the trial court properly applied the Batson analysis to reject Thompson’s challenge.

{¶ 62} Thompson’s argument turns solely on whether the trial court properly conducted the third step of the Batson inquiry, which requires a court to assess the plausibility of the prosecutor’s reason for striking a prospective juror “in light of all evidence with a bearing” on the issue. Dretke, 545 U.S. at 252, 125 S.Ct. 2317, 162 L.Ed.2d 196. At this stage of analysis, a trial court may “not simply accept a proffered race-neutral reason at face value,” but instead “must examine the prosecutor’s challenges in context to ensure that the reason [was] not merely pretextual.” State v. Frazier, 115 Ohio St.3d 139, 2007-Ohio-5048, 873 N.E.2d 1263, ¶ 65. In short, the trial court must decide whether the prosecutor’s reason is credible.

{¶ 63} Although a trial court must make a credibility determination, courts need not make detailed factual findings to comply with Batson. Id. at ¶ 98. Rather, “ ‘[a]s long as a trial judge affords the parties a reasonable opportunity to make their respective records, he may express his Batson ruling on the credibility of a proffered race-neutral explanation in the form of a clear rejection or acceptance of a Batson challenge.’ ” Id., quoting Messiah v. Duncan, 435 F.3d 186, 198 (2d Cir.2006).

{¶ 64} Here, the trial court fully explored the prosecutor’s proffered explanations for the challenge in order to evaluate their credibility. Initially, the court expressed doubts about the holdout explanation. But after considerable probing and discussion about the basis for the prosecutor’s belief that the prospective juror had been a holdout, the court denied Thompson’s Batson challenge. This denial was “itself a finding at the third step” of Batson, reflecting the court’s determination that the holdout explanation was credible. Smulls v. Roper, 535 F.3d 853, 863 (8th Cir.2008); see also Frazier at ¶ 98.

{¶ 65} Therefore, the trial court did not err by denying Thompson’s Batson challenge, and we reject proposition of law No. II.

2. Inadequate Yoir Dire

{¶ 66} Thompson next argues, in proposition of law No. Ill, that the trial court violated his constitutional rights by failing to conduct further inquiries about pretrial publicity after one prospective juror indicated that members of the jury pool had been discussing Thompson’s withdrawn guilty plea. See Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

{¶ 67} On April 13, 2009, Thompson entered a guilty plea to the charges against him. Months later, the trial judge became concerned about Thompson’s plea and scheduled a hearing to retake the plea. On December 18, 2009, Thompson requested a jury trial.

{¶ 68} Voir dire began on May 17, 2010, and lasted for five days. The trial judge and parties questioned prospective jurors about pretrial publicity during individual voir dire before conducting any group voir dire. At the time of questioning, the trial judge knew that a recent newspaper article had detailed the crime, as well as Thompson’s previous entry — and then withdrawal — of a guilty plea. Therefore, the judge asked prospective jurors whether they were aware of the facts or the procedural history of the case.

{¶ 69} As Thompson concedes, the judge excused every prospective juror who knew about his withdrawn guilty plea after individual voir dire, with the exception of prospective juror No. 51. During individual voir dire, prospective juror No. 51 stated that she knew that Thompson had “actually pleaded guilty and then he recanted.” The judge did not immediately excuse the prospective juror, because she assured the court that she would put the past guilty plea out of her mind and would not tell any other prospective jurors about it. It was not until later, during general voir dire, that the trial court ultimately excused prospective juror No. 51.

{¶ 70} Prospective juror No. 51’s knowledge of the guilty plea is relevant because later in individual voir dire, prospective juror No. 100 revealed that he had heard someone else discussing the guilty plea “in the courtroom or the jury pool.” Although prospective juror No. 100 was unable to identify the source of the information, he explained that he had “heard that originally there was a guilty plea but there was a technical problem or something and now it’s a not guilty.” The prospective juror indicated that this information made it difficult for him to be impartial, and the trial court excused him for cause.

{¶ 71} Thompson now objects that the trial judge, after learning that prospective jurors may have been discussing the withdrawn guilty plea, should have further questioned those prospective jurors who had already completed individual voir dire. In addition, Thompson suggests that the trial court should have questioned prospective juror No. 100 further to learn who was talking about Thompson’s prior plea.

{¶ 72} “The manner in which voir dire is to be conducted lies within the sound discretion of the trial judge.” State v. Lorraine, 66 Ohio St.3d 414, 418, 613 N.E.2d 212 (1993). The trial court has “great latitude in deciding what questions should be asked on voir dire.” Mu’Min v. Virginia, 500 U.S. 415, 424, 111 S.Ct. 1899, 114 L.Ed.2d 493 (1991). In addition, we have not adopted a per se rule that requires a trial court to inquire into “ ‘every instance of alleged [juror] misconduct.’ ” State v. Sanders, 92 Ohio St.3d 245, 253, 750 N.E.2d 90 (2001), quoting United States v. Hernandez, 921 F.2d 1569, 1577 (11th Cir.1991). We will not find prejudicial error in the trial court’s examination of the venire absent a clear abuse of discretion. See State v. Jackson, 107 Ohio St.3d 53, 2005-Ohio-5981, 836 N.E.2d 1173, ¶ 28.

{¶ 73} Here, an even more deferential standard applies because Thompson did not raise either objection before the trial court. Accordingly, we review Thompson’s claim only for plain error. See, e.g., State v. Brinkley, 105 Ohio St.3d 231, 2005-Ohio-1507, 824 N.E.2d 959, ¶ 64. To prevail, Thompson must show that an error occurred, that the error was plain, and that the error affected his substantial rights. See Crim.R. 52(B); State v. Barnes, 94 Ohio St.3d 21, 27, 759 N.E.2d 1240 (2002) (an error affects substantial rights only if it affected the outcome of the trial). We take “[n]otice of plain error * * * with the utmost caution, under exceptional circumstances and only to prevent a manifest miscarriage of justice.” State v. Long, 53 Ohio St.2d 91, 372 N.E.2d 804 (1978), paragraph three of the syllabus.

{¶ 74} The trial judge did not conduct further individual voir dire of prospective juror Nos. 1 through 99 after speaking with prospective juror No. 100, but she did inquire further. On May 21, 2010, the judge conducted general voir dire of all the remaining prospective jurors. During this conversation, the court made several general inquiries, any of which would have prompted a prospective juror to indicate that he or she had learned more about the case from the jury pool.

{¶ 75} With respect to publicity, the judge stated: “I * * * had told you that you were not to read the paper, discuss this with your family, watch the news. Is there anyone who has had a family member say anything to them, accidentally flipping the channels saw something about this or read something in the paper without realizing it was this case?” One prospective juror responded, spoke privately to the judge, and was excused.

{¶ 76} A few minutes later, the judge posed several broader inquiries about whether any prospective juror had anything on his or her mind that would prevent him or her from being objective and impartial. First, she inquired, “Is there anyone who, as you sit here now, says, I don’t think I can * * * set aside personal opinions. I can’t set aside any knowledge that I might have. Because many of you had some knowledge, but not very much knowledge.” Next, she asked whether anyone was thinking, “I would have to lay aside and erase from my mind, just like she told me in the original voir dire, anything I know, and I just don’t think I can do that? No one is raising their hand.” Finally, she queried, “Anyone have any thoughts or ideas about what you’ve been through so far that you can’t start fresh, open mind, when we start the trial on Monday? Anyone for whom that is a problem?” No one responded.

{¶ 77} These questions during group voir dire, coupled with the judge’s earlier inquiries about publicity during individual voir dire, were sufficient to “ ‘reasonably] assur[e] that prejudice would be discovered if present.’ ” United States v. Chagra, 669 F.2d 241, 250 (5th Cir.1982), quoting United States v. Nell, 526 F.2d 1223, 1229 (5th Cir.1976). Prospective jurors had repeated opportunities, even after the completion of individual voir dire, to come forward with any new knowledge they had gained about the case, including information from other prospective jurors and information about Thompson’s guilty plea. In short, the trial court did not err by failing to ask prospective juror No. 100 additional questions, or by failing to conduct additional individual voir dire of prospective juror Nos. 1 through 99.

{¶ 78} Moreover, Thompson has failed to establish that the alleged error would have altered the outcome of his trial. Under these circumstances, the trial court need not have concerned itself with the possibility that a juror might theoretically “have difficulty in disbelieving or forgetting a defendant’s opinion of his own guilt.” Chagra at 251, fn. 11. For these reasons, we reject proposition of law No. III.

3. Rehabilitating a Prospective Juror Who Is Against the Death Penalty

{¶ 79} In proposition of law No. IV, Thompson argues that the trial court violated his constitutional rights by refusing “to follow the standard for exclusion of a capital juror expressing reticence about the death penalty” and by not allowing defense counsel to question prospective juror No. 2 about her views on the death penalty. See Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution; Ohio Constitution, Article I, Sections 9 and 10; R.C. 2945.25(C).

{¶ 80} During individual voir dire, prospective juror No. 2 informed the court that the days scheduled for trial would be “the worst time” possible for her to be away from work. Prospective juror No. 2 worked as a school secretary, and she indicated that she would “have three days to close up shop” — June 9,10, and 11— after the students’ last day of school. The judge explained to the prospective juror that she would be needed back on June 10 and asked whether anyone else could perform the prospective juror’s job for her during that period. She replied, “Unfortunately not. I have an aid[e] that answers the phone and takes care of the sick children, but they don’t have substitute secretaries.” The judge credited this explanation, later commenting to counsel, “No schools have any extra people anymore because of budget cuts. I believe her when she says she’s the only person.”

{¶ 81} After a lengthy discussion of the prospective juror’s views on the death penalty, the trial judge said she wanted to excuse prospective juror No. 2 for cause. The record indicates that the judge contemplated two independent bases for excusing the prospective juror. First, the prospective juror had a scheduling conflict. Second, the judge determined that the prospective juror had voiced an unequivocal opposition to the death penalty.

{¶ 82} Before the court excused prospective juror No. 2, defense counsel requested an opportunity to further question the prospective juror about her views on the death penalty. After verifying that defense counsel did not want to question the prospective juror about her schedule, the judge concluded that additional questioning was unnecessary. The judge explained that prospective juror No. 2’s scheduling conflict was “sufficient” to excuse her, regardless of her views on the death penalty.

{¶ 83} Thompson does not allege any error in dismissing prospective juror No. 2 based on her scheduling conflict. The Revised Code and the Rules of Criminal Procedure both include catchall provisions allowing prospective jurors to be challenged for cause if they are “unsuitable for any other cause to serve as a juror.” R.C. 2945.25(0); Crim.R. 24(C)(14). A trial court’s application of this provision is reversible only for an abuse of discretion. See State v. Leonard, 104 Ohio St.3d 54, 2004-Ohio-6235, 818 N.E.2d 229, ¶ 53. Here, the trial court reasonably exercised its discretion by excusing prospective juror No. 2 because of a scheduling conflict.

{¶ 84} Because the trial court had a valid, independent reason for excusing the prospective juror, which Thompson has not challenged, we reject proposition of law No. IV.

4. Failure to Life-Qualify Prospective Jurors

{¶ 85} In proposition of law No. V, Thompson asserts that his rights to a fair trial, equal protection, and due process were violated when the trial court “death qualified” his jury but did not “life-qualify” prospective jurors. See Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Thompson does not allege that the trial court prevented defense counsel from questioning prospective jurors on this point; instead, he argues that the trial court’s voir dire reflected the court’s bias in favor of the prosecution.

(¶ 86} As an initial matter, the trial court did question Thompson’s prospective jurors to avoid seating “death-prone” jurors. The court did not individually life-qualify every prospective juror. However, upon reconvening for general voir dire, the court said the following to the entire group of prospective jurors:

If any of you are sitting on this jury and saying I’m going to make sure that if he’s found guilty, he gets the death penalty, or I’m sitting on this jury to make sure that if he’s found guilty, he does not get the death penalty, now is the time that you have to tell us. And, again, no shame in it, no harm. Only you know your hearts.

But if you have any of those ideas in your head, you need to tell us now.

No one responded.

{¶ 87} More important, this court has repeatedly rejected these same arguments in prior cases. There is no constitutional or statutory right to have the trial court life-qualify each prospective juror, even when the court sua sponte death-qualifies each prospective juror. See State v. Hale, 119 Ohio St.3d 118, 2008-Ohio-3426, 892 N.E.2d 864, ¶ 80; State v. Davis, 116 Ohio St.3d 404, 2008-Ohio-2, 880 N.E.2d 31, ¶ 76-77; State v. Stojetz, 84 Ohio St.3d 452, 705 N.E.2d 329 (1999), syllabus.

{¶ 88} For these reasons, we reject proposition of law No. V.

C. Venue

{¶ 89} In proposition of law No. VI, Thompson claims that the trial court violated his rights to due process and to a fair trial by denying his motion for a change of venue. According to Thompson, “[t]he pretrial publicity surrounding [his] case so infected the jury that he was unable to obtain a fair trial in Summit County.”

1. Pretrial Publicity and Venue

{¶ 90} Trial courts have a “duty to protect” criminal defendants from “inherently prejudicial publicity” that renders a jury’s deliberations unfair. Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333, 363, 86 S.Ct. 1507, 16 L.Ed.2d 600 (1966). Even so, “pretrial publicity — even pervasive, adverse publicity — does not inevitably lead to an unfair trial.” Nebraska Press Assn. v. Stuart, 427 U.S. 539, 554, 96 S.Ct. 2791, 49 L.Ed.2d 683 (1976). “[T]he best test of whether prejudicial pretrial publicity has prevented obtaining a fair and impartial jury from the locality” is “a careful and searching voir dire.” State v. Bayless, 48 Ohio St.2d 73, 98, 357 N.E.2d 1035 (1976), death penalty vacated on other grounds, 438 U.S. 911, 98 S.Ct. 3135, 57 L.Ed.2d 1155.

{¶ 91} Decisions about whether to order a change of venue “rest[ ] largely in the discretion of the trial court.” State v. Fairbanks, 32 Ohio St.2d 34, 37, 289 N.E.2d 352 (1972). We will not reverse a trial court’s venue ruling “unless is it clearly shown that the trial court has abused its discretion.” Id. An abuse of discretion is more than a mere error of law or judgment; instead, it implies that a trial court’s decision was unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable. Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 219, 450 N.E.2d 1140 (1983).

2. Motion for Change of Venue

{¶ 92} Thompson’s counsel moved for a change of venue on February 3, 2010. The trial court held the motion in abeyance, explaining that it was “required to try to seat a jury, notwithstanding the fact that there’s been a lot of publicity. If we cannot seat a jury, that’s when we would begin the process of changing venue and not before.”

{¶ 93} On May 17, 2010, the trial court called 150 prospective jurors and asked them to complete a questionnaire. Voir dire then proceeded in two stages. First, the judge and counsel questioned prospective jurors individually about their exposure to pretrial publicity and their attitudes about the death penalty. Throughout this process, the trial court dismissed prospective jurors who indicated significant knowledge of the case. In particular, the court excused the prospective jurors who knew that Thompson had pled guilty and had later withdrawn his plea.

{¶ 94} By May 20, 2010, the judge and parties had identified 50 qualified prospective jurors during individual voir dire. The judge announced, “[W]e’re now going to stop individual voir dire, with the consent of both parties, correct?” The parties indicated their consent. The judge then denied Thompson’s motion for a change of venue.

3. No Actual Bias

{¶ 95} Ordinarily, to prove that a trial court erred by denying a change of venue, a defendant must show that at least one prospective juror was actually biased. State v. Treesh, 90 Ohio St.3d 460, 464, 739 N.E.2d 749 (2001). Here, Thompson does not identify any evidence of actual bias, and the record does not bear out such concerns.

{¶ 96} The trial court seated 12 jurors and four alternates. Thompson did not object to any of these jurors. Five of the jurors and two of the alternates knew nothing about the case. Three jurors had knowledge of the basic facts of Thompson’s case: a police officer was shot and killed during a traffic stop. One knew only that the incident had occurred two years prior, and another knew that the incident occurred in Twinsburg and knew the victim’s name. The last two jurors recalled nothing about the underlying facts of the case, but one knew that the trial had been delayed a few times, and the other had heard a news report that the case was going to trial soon. The remaining two alternates knew that the case involved a murder in Twinsburg, and one of them also knew that the victim was a police officer.

{¶ 97} Every juror and alternate who had any prior knowledge of the case unequivocally had stated in individual voir dire either that he or she could put that knowledge to the side, or that he or she had formed no opinions about the case or Thompson’s guilt. The trial court had deemed the then prospective jurors qualified and had accordingly denied Thompson’s motion for a change of venue. Later, during group voir dire, the court again verified that every prospective juror would set aside any preexisting knowledge, thoughts, or ideas about the case.

{¶ 98} Thompson argues that the trial court erred because courts may not rely on a prospective juror’s subjective evaluation of his or her own ability to be fair and impartial. In Murphy v. Florida, 421 U.S. 794, 800, 95 S.Ct. 2031, 44 L.Ed.2d 589 (1975), the United States Supreme Court explained that a “juror’s assurances that he is equal to this task cannot be dispositive of the accused’s rights,” but left it “open to the defendant” to demonstrate a juror’s actual bias. Even so, the judge “who sees and hears the juror,” Wainwright v. Witt, 469 U.S. 412, 426,105 S.Ct. 844, 83 L.Ed.2d 841 (1985), has discretion “to accept [a juror’s] assurances that he would be fair and impartial and would decide the case on the basis of the evidence,” State v. Jones, 91 Ohio St.3d 335, 338, 744 N.E.2d 1163 (2001). Under the circumstances here, the trial court reasonably credited the jurors’ assurances. We discern no evidence of actual bias here.

4. No Presumed Prejudice

{¶ 99} Nevertheless, Thompson urges us to presume prejudice.

{¶ 100} The United States Supreme Court has held that in certain rare cases, pretrial publicity is so damaging that courts must presume prejudice even without a showing of actual bias. See, e.g., Sheppard, 384 U.S. 333, 86 S.Ct. 1507, 16 L.Ed.2d 600. But this presumption “attends only the extreme case.” Skilling v. United States, 561 U.S. 358, 361, 130 S.Ct. 2896, 177 L.Ed.2d 619 (2010); see also Treesh, 90 Ohio St.3d at 464, 739 N.E.2d 749.

{¶ 101} To prevail on a claim of presumed prejudice, a defendant must make “ ‘a clear and manifest showing * * * that pretrial publicity was so pervasive and prejudicial that an attempt to seat a jury would be a vain act.’ ” State v. Warner, 55 Ohio St.3d 31, 46, 564 N.E.2d 18 (1990), quoting State v. Herring, 21 Ohio App.3d 18, 486 N.E.2d 119 (9th Dist.1984), syllabus. Thompson makes several arguments in support of presuming prejudice here, but none of them is persuasive.

{¶ 102} First, Thompson points to what he calls “the extreme amount of pretrial publicity surrounding this case” and the fact that the jury pool was “replete with potential jurors who had been extensively prejudiced by media accounts.” According to Thompson, at least nine jurors had read, heard, discussed, or seen an account of Miktarian’s death, and 20 prospective jurors were excused because they knew too much, knew about Thompson’s guilty plea, or believed Thompson was guilty. But the fact that seven jurors and two alternates knew something about the case is hardly dispositive. As discussed above, jurors need not be totally ignorant about the facts of a case, and none of these individuals was actually biased. See Irvin v. Dowd, 366 U.S. 717, 722, 81 S.Ct. 1639, 6 L.Ed.2d 751 (1961). The fact that the trial court excused 20 prospective jurors because they knew too much about the case confirms only that the court was doing its job to ensure that Thompson’s jury would not be unfair or biased.

{¶ 103} Second, Thompson argues that we should presume prejudice in light of discussions between prospective jurors at the courthouse. To this end, he points again to prospective juror No. 100’s statement that he heard someone at the courthouse discussing Thompson’s withdrawn guilty plea. He also notes that prospective juror No. 86, who was later seated as an alternate, told the judge she had overheard prospective jurors discussing the case in the hallways. Under the circumstances, Thompson says, the judge should have inquired further. And because she did not, he says we should presume prejudice now.

{¶ 104} These are not compelling reasons to presume prejudice. First, as discussed in proposition of law No. Ill, the trial court did not err by failing to conduct further individual questioning of the already qualified prospective jurors after hearing that some prospective jurors had been discussing the ease. Second, the record does not indicate that any seated or alternate juror knew about Thompson’s past guilty plea. Third, the conversation overheard by prospective juror No. 86 was of no import. She heard people speculating only about whether this was “that murder case in Twinsburg.”

{¶ 105} Finally, Thompson analogizes the facts of his case to those in other cases in which the United States Supreme Court has presumed prejudice. See Sheppard, 384 U.S. 333, 86 S.Ct. 1507, 16 L.Ed.2d 600; Rideau v. Louisiana, 373 U.S. 723, 83 S.Ct. 1417, 10 L.Ed.2d 663 (1963); Irvin, 366 U.S. 717, 81 S.Ct. 1639, 6 L.Ed.2d 751. But the publicity in this case did not even begin to approach the level of pervasive influence present in those cases.

{¶ 106} In sum, Thompson fails to establish actual bias on his jury or to demonstrate that this is the rare case in which we must presume prejudice. As a result, we reject proposition of law No. VI.

D. Improper Evidence

{¶ 107} In proposition of law No. VII, Thompson claims that the trial court violated Ohio Evid.R. 403 and 404, as well as his constitutional rights, when it permitted Steven Bartz to testify about statements Thompson allegedly made at Rav’s Bar. See Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution; Ohio Constitution, Article 1, Sections 9 and 10.

{¶ 108} The trial court initially ruled on the admissibility of this evidence before the trial began. On May 24, 2010, the judge indicated her understanding that Bartz had overheard Thompson making five statements in Rav’s Bar shortly before the night of the murder. The defense objected that all these statements, although probative, were unfairly prejudicial. See Evid.R. 403. The court decided to exclude two statements that had a racial component, but found that the remaining three statements were not unfairly prejudicial: (1) “There’s demons in me,” (2) “I will kill if another f* * *er threatens me,” and (3) “Nobody understands the s* * * I’ve done and I’m capable of. I can’t even talk about it.”

{¶ 109} The prosecutor quoted Thompson’s three statements during his opening argument and introduced them through Bartz’s testimony. Bartz identified Thompson in the courtroom and testified that he saw Thompson sitting with a female at Rav’s Bar sometime after 11:30 p.m. on July 12, 2008. According to Bartz, Thompson was “pretty drunk” and was slamming his glass on the bar. Bartz recalled overhearing Thompson making some statements that made Bartz “a little bit angry.” Bartz then referred to his own prior written statement, given to police a day or two after the murder, to relate Thompson’s three statements to the jury.

{¶ 110} Outside the presence of the jury, the trial court invited defense counsel to “elaborate” on his “objection to the three statements, just for the record.” The defense argued that because the statements were general- — and not specifically about killing a police officer — they were “much more prejudicial * * * than probative.” The trial judge then explained that she had excluded “the statements that appeared to be slightly more racially charged” in order to “avoid[ ] any kind of sense of horror or appealing to an instinct to punish.” The court found that the other three statements were “relevant, probative and not unduly prejudicial.”

{¶ 111} “A trial court enjoys broad discretion in admitting evidence.” Long, 53 Ohio St.2d at 98, 372 N.E.2d 804. We “will not reject an exercise of this discretion unless it clearly has been abused and the criminal defendant thereby has suffered material prejudice.” Id.-, see also State v. Sage, 31 Ohio St.3d 173, 510 N.E.2d 343 (1987), paragraph two of the syllabus.

{¶ 112} First, Thompson argues that the three statements repeated by Bartz were improperly admitted under Evid.R. 403. Evid.R. 403(A) states that a judge must exclude evidence, regardless of its relevance, if “its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.” Unfairly prejudicial evidence usually appeals to the jury’s emotions, rather than to intellect. Oberlin v. Akron Gen. Med. Ctr., 91 Ohio St.3d 169, 172, 743 N.E.2d 890 (2001).

{¶ 113} Thompson says that the statements were not probative, because they did not go to his identity as a shooter and because the defense did not contest that he was the shooter. But the state had to prove more than just Thompson’s identity as the shooter; it also had to prove that Thompson purposely killed Miktarian. State v. Strodes, 48 Ohio St.2d 113, 116, 357 N.E.2d 375 (1976). Thompson’s statements that he would kill if threatened and that no one understood what he was capable of were relevant to show the purposefulness of the killing. And his statement that there were demons inside him buttressed the statement that he would kill if threatened. Therefore, Thompson is wrong to say that the prosecution introduced these statements “to prove only that he was angry and dangerous.” (Emphasis added.)

{¶ 114} Thompson also contends that this evidence was unfairly prejudicial because the statements “emotionally * * * painted a picture of an unstable, angry, generally dangerous person” and thereby encouraged the jury to decide the case on the basis of fear, not reason. But even assuming that Thompson’s characterization of the statements is reasonable, he cannot show that the trial court’s balancing was unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d at 219, 450 N.E.2d 1140. As a result, we defer to the trial court’s finding that the statements were admissible under Evid.R. 403.

{¶ 115} Second, Thompson objects to these statements as improper character evidence, admitted in violation of Evid.R. 404(A)(1). This rule provides: “Evidence of a person’s character or a trait of character is not admissible for the purpose of proving action in conformity therewith on a particular occasion * * Because Thompson did not raise this objection at trial, we review his claim for plain error. See State v. Perry, 101 Ohio St.3d 118, 2004-Ohio-297, 802 N.E.2d 643, ¶ 14.

{¶ 116} Contrary to Thompson’s assertions, the prosecution did not introduce this evidence in order to impermissibly portray him as an angry person, as someone with a general proclivity to violence, or even as someone who disliked law enforcement. Instead, this evidence of Thompson’s statements on the night of the crime was probative of his intent when he killed Miktarian a few hours later. Therefore, this evidence did not violate Evid.R. 404.

{¶ 117} Moreover, even if the admission of these three statements had been improper, Thompson cannot show that they affected the outcome of his trial. Ample evidence supported Thompson’s conviction for purposely murdering a law-enforcement officer and the associated death specifications.

{¶ 118} For these reasons, we reject proposition of law No. VII.

E. Unqualified Experts

{¶ 119} Thompson argues, in proposition of law No. IX, that the trial court violated Evid.R. 702 and his constitutional rights by permitting unqualified expert witnesses to testify against him. See Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution; Ohio Constitution, Article I, Sections 10 and 16. He also claims that the trial court breached its “duty to assess the relevancy and reliability of all scientific evidence introduced at trial.”

{¶ 120} Pursuant to Evid.R. 702, a witness may testify as an expert when three criteria are satisfied. First, the witness’s testimony must “either relate}] to matters beyond the knowledge or experience possessed by lay persons or dispel[ ] a misconception common among lay persons.” EvicLR. 702(A). Second, the witness must be “qualified as an expert by specialized knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education regarding the subject matter of the testimony.” Evid.R. 702(B). A witness does not need either complete knowledge of a field or special education or certification to qualify as an expert. State v. Baston, 85 Ohio St.3d 418, 423, 709 N.E.2d 128 (1999). Finally, the witness’s testimony must be “based on reliable scientific, technical, or other specialized information.” Evid.R. 702(C). In addition, all expert testimony remains subject to other evidentiary rules.

{¶ 121} Because Thompson failed to raise any of his current expert-testimony objections at trial, we review his claim for plain error only. Baston at 423.

1. John Saraya

{¶