State v. Spaulding (151 Ohio St. 3d 378, 2016)

French, J.

{¶ 1} This is an appeal of right by defendant-appellant, Dawud Spaulding, who was convicted of the 2011 aggravated murders of Erica Singleton and Ernie Thomas and was sentenced to death. For the reasons below, we affirm Spaulding’s convictions and sentence.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

A. Pretrial Background

{¶2} In 2012, the state charged Spaulding with two counts of aggravated murder under R.C. 2903.01(A). Each count carried a death specification for course of conduct, R.C. 2929.04(A)(5), and the first count also carried a death specification for witness murder, R.C. 2929.04(A)(8). The state also charged Spaulding with the attempted murder of Patrick Griffin, felonious assault, domestic violence, menacing by stalking, intimidation of a crime victim or witness, violating a protection order, and having weapons while under a disability. Four counts of the indictment carried firearm specifications.

B. The State’s Case-in-Chief

{¶ 3} The state presented evidence of the following at a jury trial, which began in October 2012.

1. Spaulding’s relationship with Singleton

{¶4} Spaulding and Singleton began dating in 1999 or 2000 and had two children: Dre’San, born in 2004, and Damonie, born in 2009. According to Singleton’s mother, by 2006, the couple was fighting “all the time.”

{¶ 5} In 2008, Singleton allegedly stabbed Spaulding during an argument. While discussing this alleged incident during a 2011 police investigation, Spaulding said that he “deserved it” and that she was retaliating because he had been cheating on her. He also told police that Singleton sprayed him with mace in 2009 and that it angered him because he “wasn’t even cheating” at the time.

{¶ 6} In April 2010, Singleton called 9-1-1 to report the theft of her car radio. She told the responding officer, Detective Jeremy McGee, that Spaulding had been threatening her in telephone calls and text messages, including one that mentioned that her radio would look good in his car. McGee recorded three voicemail messages that Spaulding had left for Singleton, and the state played them at trial. On the messages, Spaulding referred to Singleton as a “dumb bitch,” threatened to get in “[her] grill,” said he would “get away with this,” and cautioned that he would be “ready” if police came to get him. Spaulding was convicted of domestic violence and telecommunications harassment.

{¶ 7} In February 2011, Singleton called 9-1-1 to a report a domestic dispute. The responding officer testified that Singleton said her ex-boyfriend had sent her several text messages that morning accusing her of seeing another man. Later, she heard a knock at her door and opened it to find Spaulding. He struck her across the face, knocked her to the floor, and fled -with her cell phone. Spaulding pleaded guilty to felony domestic violence.

{¶ 8} In August 2011, Singleton requested a civil protection order against Spaulding and testified at an ex parte hearing before Magistrate Tracy Stoner in the Summit County domestic-relations court. Magistrate Stoner testified at trial and recalled Singleton’s testimony that Spaulding had threatened her with a gun and threatened her mother and sister. Magistrate Stoner found that this testimony was credible evidence to support Singleton’s request and issued a one-year protection order. But the order was dismissed when Singleton did not appear at the final hearing.

{¶ 9} In October 2011, Singleton called 9-1-1 from a hotel to report that someone had slashed or let the air out of her car tires. The responding officer testified that Singleton was “terrified” and that she suspected Spaulding. She told the officer that Spaulding had been stalking her by using the GPS in her cell phone. (In December 2011, Spaulding confirmed this suspicion when he told police that he had tracked Singleton to a hotel, where he found her with a man named James.) While the officer was at the scene, Singleton had a phone conversation with a man she identified as Spaulding. The officer heard the man calling Singleton names, swearing, and accusing her of sleeping with James.

{¶ 10} After Spaulding learned that Singleton “was messing with James,” he began seeing Anitress Morris (“Peaches”). By October or November 2011, Spaulding was staying at Peaches’s apartment.

{¶ 11} Around the same time, Singleton began a relationship with Ernest Thomas. Singleton often spent time at Thomas’s home at 1104 Grant Street in Akron and, according to Thomas’s brother, they were becoming “real close.” Spaulding later told police that he had not minded Singleton seeing other men, even though they had “been together for ten years.”

{¶ 12} On November 28, 2011, Singleton called 9-1-1 to report that Spaulding had broken into her apartment, held “a gun on [her],” and “almost cut [her] neck.” Officers responded and took Singleton’s statement. Singleton said that Spaulding had entered the apartment around 5:00 a.m. and stayed several hours, refusing to let her leave. He had straddled Singleton in her bed, held a hand over her mouth, brandished a steak knife and a handgun, and threatened “to kill her as revenge for having him arrested in the past.” He had also demanded money. While officers were still at the scene, Spaulding called Singleton. Over speakerphone, Sergeant Carl Woofter heard Spaulding tell Singleton three times to “let this go”; Spaulding also warned, “I’m watching you now.”

{¶ 13} Police issued a warrant for Spaulding’s arrest on four first-degree felony charges: aggravated robbery, aggravated burglary, domestic violence, and kidnapping. Spaulding later told police that he had been aware that he had been charged and believed (incorrectly) that he was facing an attempted-murder charge. At trial, Lieutenant James Phister explained that Spaulding could have been sentenced to up to 46 years of imprisonment if convicted of these charges.

{¶ 14} Singleton began staying at a battered-women’s shelter and again sought a civil protection order against Spaulding. On December 1, 2011, she appeared at an ex parte hearing in Summit County before domestic-relations magistrate Stephan Bennett Collins. At trial, Magistrate Collins testified that Singleton “gave some pretty compelling testimony as to the nature of the violence she had experienced.” Magistrate Collins issued a one-year protection order and scheduled a final hearing for December 14, at which Spaulding would have an opportunity to respond to Singleton’s allegations.

{¶ 15} Spaulding told police that he did not speak to Singleton again until about a week after the November 28 incident. He said that he offered Singleton $2,500 to “drop the charges” against him and that she agreed, without accepting the money. On December 6, Singleton contacted police to ask whether she could have the charges dismissed. A few days later, she showed her mother her life-insurance policies and explained, “[J]ust in case something happen[s], * * * I got a hundred thousand dollars on me.” On December 14, Singleton did not appear for the final hearing on the civil protection order issued by Magistrate Collins.

{¶ 16} At trial, Singleton’s mother testified that she had urged her daughter to leave Spaulding at various times but that Singleton kept “going back” to him. In addition, the state introduced testimony from Dana Zedak, a social worker at a battered-women’s shelter. Zedak testified about the dynamics of domestic violence. She explained that victims are often reluctant to prosecute domestic violence and have a tendency to return to abusive relationships and to blame themselves for the violence.

2. The events of December 15, 2011

{¶ 17} On December 14, 2011, Singleton asked her mother to watch Dre’San and Damonie. She went to the movies with Thomas, then back to his house at 1104 Grant Street. They spent an hour or two with Thomas’s nephew, Patrick “Pee Wee” Griffin, and his friend Anthony Shellman.

{¶ 18} Shortly before 2:00 a.m. on December 15, Griffin left Thomas’s home to pick up food and to sell cocaine. Griffin was walking out the side door of the house, which opened onto the driveway, when he saw someone with a gun. The person shot Griffin in the back of the neck from a distance of three or four feet. The bullet transected his spinal cord and paralyzed him from the neck down.

{¶ 19} Shellman testified that as he was walking out the door, he heard Griffin say, “Ah, shit,” followed by three gunshots and Griffin’s screams. Shellman ran back into the house and used a mattress for cover. He heard someone unload a gun and exchange the clip. Later, he looked into the kitchen and saw “a tall individual,” whom he could not identify. Eventually, Shellman ran out of the house with Thomas and Singleton and called 9-1-1.

{¶ 20} Emergency medical personnel transported Griffin to the hospital. His car remained at 1104 Grant Street, where it blocked Thomas’s and Singleton’s cars in the driveway until it was towed at 5:00 a.m. According to Thomas’s friend, Niechelle Bell, she gave Thomas and Singleton a ride to Singleton’s apartment in Tallmadge at 3:30 or 4:00 a.m.

{¶ 21} Around 7:45 a.m., Singleton called her mother, Kimberly (“Kim”) Singleton, and said she was on her way to pick up Dre’San for school. Not long after, Spaulding called Kim and asked, “Did Erica make it there yet?” Kim told him that Singleton was on her way. In response, Spaulding “started laughing” and asked, “She ain’t made it there yet?”

{¶ 22} At 8:01 a.m., two men found Singleton and Thomas lying in the driveway of 1104 Grant Street and called 9-1-1.

3. Initial investigation

{¶ 23} Police were dispatched to 1104 Grant Street twice on December 15, 2011, arriving first at 1:55 a.m. to investigate Griffin’s shooting and then at 8:05 a.m. to investigate Singleton’s and Thomas’s deaths.

{¶ 24} After Griffin’s shooting, police secured the crime scene, searched the house, and collected evidence. They noted bullet holes in the kitchen doorframe and recovered .32-caliber shell casings from the front porch, the dining-room table and floor, and the dining-room doorframe. Police also found evidence of drug trafficking in the house, including a scale and a baggie of powder cocaine. And Griffin’s car contained what appeared to be drugs and $2,400 in cash.

{¶ 25} Officers finished processing the scene around 5:00 a.m. Three hours later, after Singleton’s and Thomas’s bodies were found, an officer took a six-minute video of the crime scene, including the inside and outside of 1104 Grant Street and the victims.

{¶ 26} The video showed Singleton and Thomas lying on the driveway next to their cars. Singleton was face-down, holding a piece of luggage and a purse. Thomas was face-up several feet from Singleton. The driver-side door of his car was open, keys were in the ignition, and the car was running. A bag of clothes and a piece of luggage were in the backseat, and another piece of luggage was next to the car.

{¶ 27} Summit County’s chief medical examiner, Dr. Lisa Kohler, and deputy medical examiner, Dr. Dorothy Dean, conducted autopsies and concluded that Singleton and Thomas each died from a single gunshot wound to the back of the head. The medical examiners classified the deaths as homicides.

{¶ 28} Police did not recover the weapon used to shoot Griffin, Singleton or Thomas. But they did collect four 9mm shell casings from the driveway of 1104 Grant Street. Lieutenant Phister testified that two of the four casings were present when police photographed the scene after Griffin’s shooting and that two more were present when police returned to the scene just after 8:00 a.m. Subsequent analysis by the Bureau of Criminal Investigation revealed that all four casings were fired from the same weapon, a 9mm Luger.

{¶ 29} Singleton’s mother went to 1104 Grant Street and told police that she suspected Spaulding. When Detective Richard Morrison learned that Spaulding had outstanding felony warrants related to his alleged robbery and kidnapping of Singleton, he directed officers to bring Spaulding in for questioning.

{¶ 30} Meanwhile, police continued to pursue other leads. But, according to Detective Morrison, “in the end * * * everything started coming back to [Spaulding].”

4. Spaulding’s arrest and interrogation

{¶ 31} On December 16, police arrested Spaulding at Peaches’ apartment around 7:00 or 8:00 p.m. Detectives questioned Spaulding that night and two more times on December 19. The state played redacted video recordings of the first and third interrogations at trial.

{¶ 32} During the interviews, Spaulding consistently denied the charges related to the November 28 incident and responsibility for all three shootings. He said he was at Peaches’ apartment all night on December 14 to 15 and that he left at around 7:30 a.m. on December 15 to buy marijuana on Channelwood Circle in Akron. According to Spaulding, as he was driving to Channelwood Circle, he texted Singleton shortly before 8:00 a.m. and asked whether he could speak to their son, Dre’San, before Dre’San went to school. Singleton agreed to call after she picked up Dre’San. When Spaulding did not hear from Singleton, he called her mother, Kim, at around 8:15 a.m. to see whether Singleton had arrived. Kim said no. After that, Spaulding bought the marijuana, spent at least an hour at the house of his cousin Amhad, and then returned to Peaches’ apartment.

{¶ 33} Spaulding offered police two possible leads on the December 15 shootings. First, he urged officers to speak to two women named Ciera and Keona, who reportedly saw Singleton after Griffin was shot. According to Spaulding, Singleton went to Ciera’s house early on December 15, “laughing” about someone getting shot. Ciera told Spaulding that Singleton hid “some dope and a gun” at the house and retrieved them later. Ciera also said that Singleton mentioned four men who were wearing masks. But neither Ciera nor Keona was willing to speak to police. As a second possible lead, Spaulding told officers about rumors that the shootings involved an attempted robbery or a drug deal gone bad. He had heard that Griffin had shorted a buyer a few grams of marijuana, then started “flashing money around.”

{¶ 34} During police questioning, Spaulding denied knowing that Singleton was staying at 1104 Grant Street. But he admitted that by 4:00 a.m. on December 15, he knew that Singleton was not at a shelter. He was familiar with Thomas’s house, Singleton’s license plate number, and her car. But Spaulding insisted that he had never been to 1104 Grant Street, that he did not know Thomas, and that he had not been jealous. Spaulding suggested that if she had been home with the kids or had taken the kids to school, then she would not have been at the “wrong place at the wrong time.”

{¶ 35} Police could not verify Spaulding’s alibi. According to police, Peaches— who did not testify at trial—said that Spaulding was living with her, but she did not confirm that he was home all night on December 14 to 15. Instead, she told police that she had called Spaulding looking for him around 7:50 a.m. on December 15. Peaches was talking to Spaulding on the phone when he received a call informing him of Singleton’s death.

{¶ 36} When police told Spaulding that Peaches did not back up his alibi, Spaulding changed his story; he said that December 14 to 15 must have been the night he slept in the driveway of his cousin’s house, on the west side of town.

{¶ 37} Cell-phone records also contradicted Spaulding’s accounts. He had sent text messages to Singleton during the night of the shootings expressing concern that she was with another man. Around 10:00 p.m., he texted her, “Dam u wit a nigga y u aint answer.” Nine minutes later, he texted her, “Dam we just broke up u wit a nigga already.” On December 15, his phone was used to place six calls—three between 2:04 and 2:15 a.m. and three between 7:58 and 8:08 a.m.— that bounced off cell-phone towers in the vicinity of 1104 Grant Street. And although Spaulding had denied knowing Thomas, his phone had been used to place five calls to Thomas’s phone on December 14 and 15.

5. Witness identifications and inculpatory statements

{¶ 38} Two witnesses identified Spaulding, and two other witnesses testified that they had heard him make inculpatory statements.

{¶ 39} First, Patrick Griffin identified Spaulding as his shooter. Police interviewed Griffin in the hospital on December 20, 2011. Detective Morrison asked Griffin several questions, including whether the shooter was Singleton’s ex-boyfriend. Griffin, who was unable to speak, nodded his head “yes.” Police then showed Griffin six photos, including a photo of Spaulding, and asked whether any of the men was the shooter. Griffin shook his head “no” to each. Griffin viewed the same array again a few minutes later, after police told him about the murders of Singleton and Thomas. During the second viewing, Griffin identified Spaulding’s photo and indicated he was “a hundred percent sure” that that man had shot him.

{¶ 40} Griffin twice more verified his identification of Spaulding. In May 2012, police asked him to view the photo array again so they could record the identification. (Recording had not been possible on December 20, because Griffin was in the intensive-care unit.) And during a deposition in September 2012, Griffin identified Spaulding as his shooter by closed-circuit video.

{¶ 41} Second, Todd Wilbur testified that he saw a man—whom he identified as Spaulding at trial—outside 1104 Grant Street the morning of December 15. Wilbur stopped his car at the corner of Grant Street and Stanton Avenue for 15 to 20 seconds around 7:52 a.m. He saw two people coming down from the porch of 1104 Grant Street—a black man and a black woman carrying a piece of luggage. While Wilbur watched, a second black man walked down the sidewalk toward the house. When she noticed the second man, the woman stopped in her tracks. The two men met at the end of the driveway. Wilbur observed “heated” body language, then saw the second man push the first and motion to his own waistband. Wilbur did not want his son (a passenger in the car) to see a fight, so he drove away. After driving about 50 feet, Wilbur “hear[d] pop and then pop.”

{¶ 42} Later that morning, Wilbur returned to the scene. He told police that he had seen an altercation and a car in the driveway. But he was reluctant to offer more details because it was a rough neighborhood and he was scared. Around nine months later, after moving to a new neighborhood, Wilbur approached police to elaborate on his statement.

{¶ 43} Third, Anthony Shellman testified that he confronted Spaulding while they were both incarcerated in the Summit County Jail. Shellman accused Spaulding of “killing] [Shellmaris] dude” and said that he had been at 1104 Grant Street the night of the shootings. Spaulding responded, “No, you wasn’t.”

{¶ 44} Finally, James Allen Gilbert testified that he had met Spaulding in the Summit County Jail. According to Gilbert, Spaulding said that Spaulding’s cousin had burned the clothes Spaulding “had on that day” and that “[t]he pistol in [his] case no longer exists.”

C. The Defense Case

{¶ 45} Spaulding’s counsel tried to create reasonable doubt by suggesting alternative theories of the murders, supported by testimony elicited on cross-examination.

{¶ 46} First, the defense attempted to cast doubt on Griffin’s identification of Spaulding. On cross-examination, Detective Morrison conceded that someone could have told Griffin information about the identity of the shooter before he first viewed the photo array. Four of Griffin’s family members visited him in the hospital, and only two testified that they did not tell him that police suspected Spaulding. (The other two did not-testify on the issue.) The defense also implied that Morrison may have been unduly suggestive when, just before Griffin was shown the photo array, he asked Griffin whether the shooter had been Singleton’s ex-boyfriend.

{¶ 47} In addition, there was conflicting testimony about whether there was enough light for Griffin to see his assailant at the time of the shooting. Griffin testified that a light was on above the side door of 1104 Grant Street, but Shellman testified that the area near the side door was dark. Two officers who responded to the Griffin shooting testified that they could see three or four feet away in that area, but one officer said that he used his flashlight and the other observed that some light was generated by police cruisers at the scene.

{¶ 48} Second, the defense suggested that the murders may have been drug related. Evidence indicated that Griffin and Thomas were known drug dealers and that drugs had been sold at 1104 Grant Street for years. Griffin claimed that when he was leaving 1104 Grant Street just before his shooting, he was going to sell cocaine to a customer named Glen Brown. But Carl Thomas (Thomas’s brother) testified that Griffin was meeting Brown at the house.

{¶ 49} Finally, the defense implied that the shootings were related to the murder of David Clark (“Frog”). Frog, a childhood friend of the Thomas brothers, was murdered around the corner from 1104 Grant Street in June 2011. The defense implied that Thomas, who police initially believed was present when Frog was murdered, may have been killed by someone getting revenge on Frog’s behalf. But the officer who investigated Frog’s murder testified that Thomas was not present when Frog died, and Detective Morrison testified that police never found any connection between the murders. Carl Thomas also testified that his brother had long been cleared of suspicion; he denied any lingering friction between the Clark and Thomas families after Frog’s death.

D. Verdict and Sentencing

{¶ 50} The jury convicted Spaulding of all counts and specifications, with two exceptions: Count 7, menacing by stalking, and the first capital specification to Count 1, alleging that Spaulding purposely killed Singleton to prevent her from testifying as a witness in another case.

{¶ 51} After a mitigation hearing, the trial court accepted the jury’s recommendation to sentence Spaulding to death. The court also sentenced Spaulding to 32 and a half years on the remaining counts.

II. ANALYSIS

{¶ 52} On direct appeal, Spaulding raises 14 propositions of law. For clarity, we address these propositions out of order.

A. Absence of Defense Counsel

{¶ 53} Before Spaulding’s arraignment, two capital-certified counsel were appointed to represent him. But, according to Spaulding, there were a number of occasions when either lead counsel, Donald Walker, or co-counsel, Jason Wells, was absent for a hearing or part of the trial. In proposition of law No. 1, Spaulding contends that these absences violated his Sixth Amendment and due-process rights.

{¶ 54} Spaulding’s argument begins with his interpretation of former Sup.R. 20, which governed the appointment of counsel for indigent defendants charged with capital offenses at the time of his trial. Pursuant to former Sup.R. 20(I)(C), if a “defendant is entitled to the appointment of counsel, the court shall appoint two attorneys certified pursuant to Sup.R. 20 through 20.05.”

{¶ 55} According to Spaulding, because former Sup.R. 20 entitled him to two appointed counsel, he was also entitled to have two counsel present at every stage of the litigation. But Sup.R. 20 “does not require that both appointed attorneys be involved in every aspect of a defendant’s case.” State v. Parker, 350 N.C. 411, 516 S.E.2d 106, 114 (1999) (interpreting an analogous North Carolina law that entitles an indigent capital defendant to two attorneys). In fact, capital defendants are generally represented by a team, which may include multiple attorneys, an investigator, a mitigation expert, and medical experts. Appt.Coun.R. 5.10(A). Lead counsel “bear[s] overall responsibility for the performance of the defense team,” but it is expected that he or she will “allocate, direct, and supervise the work of the defense team.” Appt.Coun.R. 5.10(B); see also American Bar Association, ABA Guidelines for the Appointment and Performance of Defense Counsel in Death Penalty Cases, Guideline 10.4(B) (Rev.Ed.2003), reprinted in 31 Hofstra L.Rev. 913, 999 (2003). The rules do not require both appointed counsel to be present at every pretrial hearing or every moment of trial.

{¶ 56} We also reject Spaulding’s related claim that his trial counsel were constitutionally ineffective because both were not present at every proceeding. To establish a Sixth Amendment violation, a defendant ordinarily must establish both that counsel performed deficiently and that the defendant was prejudiced by the deficient performance. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 686, 694,104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). However, the United States Supreme Court “has uniformly found constitutional error without any showing of prejudice when counsel was * * * totally absent, or prevented from assisting the accused during a critical stage of the proceeding.” (Emphasis added.) United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648, 659, 104 S.Ct. 2039, 80 L.Ed.2d 657 (1984), fn. 25; see also Strickland at 692 (“Actual or constructive denial of the assistance of counsel altogether is legally presumed to result in prejudice”).

{¶ 57} Here, Spaulding does not assert—nor does the record indicate—that both his counsel were ever “totally absent.” As such, we decline to presume prejudice under Strickland. See People v. Montiel, 5 Cal.4th 877, 906, 21 Cal.Rptr.2d 705, 855 P.2d 1277 (1993), fn. 5 (“there is no authority for the proposition that a capital defendant has the right to the courtroom presence of both appointed cocounsel”); see also Jones v. State, 124 Nev. 1483, 238 P.3d 827, 2008 WL 6124753, *6 (2008) (unpublished) (capital defendant not totally deprived of counsel when “he was represented by counsel at all critical stages of the criminal proceedings, albeit in one or two instances by only one counsel”).

{¶ 58} Therefore, to establish a Sixth Amendment violation, Spaulding would have to prove that “but for” his attorneys’ isolated absences, “the result of the proceeding would have been different.” Strickland at 694. But Spaulding does not explain how he was prejudiced by Walker’s or Wells’s absence at any proceeding, or even by the cumulative effect of those absences. And the record shows that Walker actively represented Spaulding in Wells’s absence and that Wells actively represented Spaulding when Walker was absent. Under these circumstances, counsel’s absences did not violate Spaulding’s rights to counsel or due process.

{¶ 59} We therefore reject proposition of law No. 1.

B. Joinder

{¶ 60} In proposition of law No. 5, Spaulding argues that the trial court violated his rights to due process and a fair trial when it denied his motion for relief from prejudicial joinder. We disagree.

1. Crim.R. 8(A) and 14

{¶ 61} Ohio “favors joining multiple offenses in a single trial * * * if the offenses charged ‘are of the same or similar character.’ ” State v. Lott, 51 Ohio St.3d 160, 163, 555 N.E.2d 293 (1990), quoting Crim.R. 8(A). Crim.R. 8(A) also allows the joinder of offenses that “are based on the same act or transaction, or are based on two or more acts or transactions connected together or constituting parts of a common scheme or plan, or are part of a course of criminal conduct.” Permitting joinder “conserves resources by avoiding duplication inherent in multiple trials and minimizes the possibility of incongruous results that can occur in successive trials before different juries.” State v. Hamblin, 37 Ohio St.3d 153, 158, 524 N.E.2d 476 (1988).

{¶ 62} “Notwithstanding the policy in favor of joinder,” Crim.R. 14 permits a defendant to request severance of the “counts of an indictment on the grounds that he or she is prejudiced by the joinder of multiple offenses.” State v. LaMar, 95 Ohio St.3d 181, 2002-Ohio-2128, 767 N.E.2d 166, ¶49. In doing so, the defendant “has the burden of furnishing the trial court with sufficient information so that it can weigh the considerations favoring joinder against the defendant’s right to a fair trial.” State v. Torres, 66 Ohio St.2d 340, 343, 421 N.E.2d 1288 (1981). Even then, the state can overcome a defendant’s claim of prejudicial joinder by showing either that (1) it could have introduced evidence of the joined offenses as “other acts” under Evid.R. 404(B) or (2) the “evidence of each crime joined at trial is simple and direct.” Lott at 163.

{¶ 63} We review a trial court’s ruling on a Crim.R. 14 motion for an abuse of discretion. State v. Hand, 107 Ohio St.3d 378, 2006-Ohio-18, 840 N.E.2d 151, ¶ 166. A defendant who appeals the denial of relief bears a heavy burden:

He must affirmatively demonstrate (1) that his rights were prejudiced, (2) that at the time of the motion to sever he provided the trial court with sufficient information so that it could weigh the considerations favoring joinder against the defendant’s right to a fair trial, and (3) that given the information provided to the court, it abused its discretion in refusing to separate the charges for trial.

State v. Schaim, 65 Ohio St.3d 51, 59, 600 N.E.2d 661 (1992).

{¶ 64} If a defendant did not file a Crim.R. 14 motion in the trial court, however, we review claims of prejudicial joinder for plain error. See Lott, 51 Ohio St.3d at 164, 555 N.E.2d 293. To prevail under this standard, the defendant must establish that an error occurred, it was obvious, and it affected his or her 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 “[njotice 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.

2. Spaulding’s motion for relief

{¶ 65} To determine whether the trial court erred by denying Spaulding’s Crim.R. 14 motion, it is first necessary to clarify the relief he sought at trial.

{¶ 66} Spaulding’s written motion did not specify which counts of the indictment he wanted the trial court to sever, but defense counsel later clarified the request. During a pretrial hearing, counsel expressed concern that the jurors would be prejudiced against Spaulding after hearing all the charges against him; he reasoned that the jurors would assume Spaulding’s guilt as soon as they learned that he was accused of shooting three victims. Defense counsel explained that the menacing-by-stalking charge would permit the state to introduce evidence of Spaulding’s relationship with Singleton during the 17 days prior to the murders “or even years before that.” And he argued that this evidence was irrelevant to the attempted murder of Griffin because the attempted murder arose from a “different fact pattern} ]” than the murders of Thomas and Singleton.

{¶ 67} The trial court appeared receptive to Spaulding’s concerns about the prejudicial impact of evidence that the state might introduce to prove menacing by stalking. After hearing defense counsel’s arguments, the court said, “I think the only place you get with your argument is your argument about menacing by stalking bringing in a lot of prior conduct. But I can’t see separating the two murders from the attempted murder.” Counsel responded, “That’s what we’re looking to do, Your Honor, and we’d like our objection noted.”

{¶ 68} In light of this exchange, it became clear that defense counsel wanted the court to order separate trials for the crimes relating to Griffin, on the one hand, and the crimes relating to Singleton and Thomas, on the other hand. But defense counsel did not specifically ask the court to sever the menacing-by-stalking count or any other count of the indictment, even when the trial court pressed the issue.

{¶ 69} Under these circumstances, the trial court reasonably denied Spaulding’s request. Counts 1 through 3 of the indictment—aggravated murder of Singleton, aggravated murder of Thomas, and attempted murder of Griffin— alleged offenses that were part of a single course of criminal conduct that occurred on the morning of December 15, 2011. These crimes all occurred at the same location and involved the same weapon. And even though they involved three different victims, the evidence of these crimes was interrelated. See Hamblin, 37 Ohio St.3d at 158, 524 N.E.2d 476 (joinder proper when two criminal acts had occurred near each other, less than 20 minutes apart, in part because evidence of the crimes “was interrelated”).

3. Menacing by stalking and domestic violence

{¶ 70} On appeal, Spaulding also claims that the trial court erred “[b]y denying the motion to sever the domestic violence and menacing by stalking charges from the aggravated murder and attempted murder charges.” But, as explained above, Spaulding did not ask the trial court to sever those counts. As such, we review this claim for plain error only. Lott, 51 Ohio St.3d at 164, 555 N.E.2d 293.

{¶ 71} Count 6 of the indictment alleged that Spaulding committed domestic violence against Singleton on December 15, 2011. And because the state charged Spaulding with third-degree-felony domestic violence, it had to prove not only that he committed domestic violence on December 15 but also that he had two or more prior domestic-violence convictions. R.C. 2919.25(D)(4). As such, the inclusion of Count 6 in the indictment meant that jurors would learn about Spaulding’s prior acts of domestic violence.

{¶ 72} Count 7 charged Spaulding with committing menacing by stalking Singleton between November 29 and December 15, 2011. To convict Spaulding on this count, the state had to prove that he had “engag[ed] in a pattern of conduct” that “knowingly cause[d]” Singleton to believe that he would cause her physical harm or mental distress. R.C. 2903.211(A)(1). Accordingly, as explained below in the analysis of proposition of law Nos. 6 and 7, evidence of Spaulding’s past domestic violence would be relevant to establish both a pattern of conduct and that Spaulding knew that his conduct would cause Singleton to believe that he was going to harm her. See State v. Horsley, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 05AP-350, 2006-Ohio-1208, 2006 WL 648849, ¶ 25-26; State v. Bilder, 99 Ohio App.3d 653, 658, 651 N.E.2d 502 (9th Dist.1994).

{¶ 73} Thus, the joinder of Counts 6 and 7 with the other counts of the indictment undeniably stood to expose the jury to significant evidence that might prejudice Spaulding’s trial on the remaining charges. And, at trial, the state did introduce extensive evidence of Spaulding’s prior bad acts to support these charges. Under these circumstances, if Spaulding had requested severance of these two counts and provided the trial court adequate information about the prejudicial effect that joinder would have on his trial, the court would have been justified in severing these counts for trial.

{¶ 74} That said, the trial court did not plainly err by permitting these counts to be tried together. The joinder of these counts was not erroneous on its face at the outset of trial. And even if it had been, given the substantial evidence of Spaulding’s guilt, the alleged error was not outcome determinative. See Barnes, 94 Ohio St.3d at 27, 759 N.E.2d 1240. Witnesses placed Spaulding at 1104 Grant Street at the time of both shootings. Griffin identified Spaulding as his shooter, and Wilbur saw Spaulding with Singleton and Thomas moments before their murders. And ballistics evidence indicated that the same weapon was used in both incidents. Under the circumstances, we find no plain error.

{¶ 75} For these reasons, we reject proposition of law No. 5.

C. Motions to Suppress

{¶ 76} Proposition of law Nos. 2 and 4 assert that trial counsel provided constitutionally ineffective assistance with regard to two suppression issues. We disagree.

{¶ 77} To prevail, Spaulding must (1) show that counsel’s performance “fell below an objective standard of reasonableness,” as determined by “prevailing professional norms,” and (2) demonstrate “a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” Strickland, 466 U.S. at 688, 694, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674. When performing a Strickland analysis, we “indulge a strong presumption that counsel’s conduct falls within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance.” Id. at 689.

1. Griffin’s identiñcation

{¶ 78} In proposition of law No. 2, Spaulding argues that his trial counsel’s efforts to challenge Griffin’s identification were constitutionally ineffective.

a. Factual background

{¶ 79} On October 18, 2012, after three days of voir dire, defense counsel filed a motion to suppress all evidence and statements obtained as a result of Griffin’s identification of Spaulding in a photo array. Spaulding argued that the “identification process * * * was unduly suggestive and tainted the identification.” He raised two specific objections: (1) the Akron Police Department had not adopted procedures for conducting photo arrays, as required by R.C. 2933.83, and (2) the photos in the array were themselves “unnecessarily suggestive and conducive to irreparable mistaken identification.”

{¶ 80} On October 19, 2012, the trial court questioned defense counsel about the lateness of their motion. Counsel explained that although they initially had reservations about it, they ultimately decided that the motion was proper in order to protect the record and themselves on appellate review.

{¶ 81} The court then heard testimony from Detective Morrison about his interview of Griffin on December 20, 2011. Morrison explained that at the time, Griffin was in the hospital’s intensive-care unit, was intubated, and could communicate only by nodding his head “yes” or shaking his head “no.”

{¶ 82} Detective Morrison asked Griffin several preliminary questions before beginning the array, to make sure “he was with it.” When he concluded that Griffin understood the preliminary questions and was responding appropriately, Morrison proceeded with the array.

{¶ 83} Griffin viewed the array twice on December 20. On the first viewing, he shook his head “no” to all six pictures. But Detective Morrison testified that Griffin “stared, kind of had a little angry look” when he reached the fourth photo (later identified as Spaulding). After Griffin failed to make an identification, Morrison told him that two of his friends had been killed. Then Griffin viewed the array a second time. According to Morrison, when Griffin reached the fourth photo, his eyes entered a “dead stare” and “tears started rolling down his eyes.” He identified the person as his shooter, nodding “yes” when Morrison asked whether he was “100 percent sure.”

{¶ 84} Police did not record the December 20 interview and photo array because Griffin was in intensive care. But almost six months later, on May 11, 2012, Griffin viewed the array a third time and again identified Spaulding. Police recorded that identification on video.

{¶ 85} In addition to Detective Morrison’s testimony, the state introduced a written copy of the Akron Police Department’s photo-array procedures, the photo-array instructions that were read to Griffin, the array he viewed, and the recording of the May 2012 identification.

{¶ 86} After reviewing the evidence, the trial court overruled the suppression motion. In a written order, the court rejected Spaulding’s claim that the police department had not adopted a proper photo-array procedure and also found, “upon its own inspection of the photo array used in this ease, that the photo array is not impermissibly suggestive.” The court also noted that Spaulding’s motion was untimely.

b. Analysis

{¶ 87} Spaulding argues that his trial counsel provided constitutionally ineffective assistance with regard to Griffin’s identification in three ways.

{¶ 88} First, he argues that his counsel were unprepared to challenge Griffin’s identification, as evidenced by their filing the suppression motion several days after voir dire had begun. The trial court noted the untimeliness, and the prosecutor cited this as grounds for rejecting the motion. See Crim.R. 12(C)(3) (requiring that any suppression motions be filed before trial). But even so, Spaulding was not prejudiced by counsel’s dilatory filing: the trial court held a suppression hearing and resolved the motion on its merits.

{¶ 89} Second, Spaulding maintains that counsel’s suppression motion was so inadequate that it violated his Sixth Amendment rights. Initially, he points to the late filing as proof that counsel were unprepared to argue the suppression issue. Then he argues that counsel failed to mention three facts that would have supported suppression: (1) Griffin did not identify Spaulding in the first array, (2) Griffin was in poor health on December 20, and (3) several days passed between the shooting and the first array. But even if counsel should have stressed all these points, Spaulding cannot establish prejudice. Detective Morrison testified to all of this information during the suppression hearing. Thus, the trial court was apprised of these facts before it ruled on the motion.

{¶ 90} Finally, presumably in an effort to show how his trial counsel compounded the harm done by ineffectively arguing his suppression motion, Spaulding critiques counsel’s performance during Detective Morrison’s testimony at trial. According to Spaulding, trial counsel should have cross-examined Morrison about Griffin’s initial failure to make an identification. But “[t]he scope of cross-examination falls within the ambit of trial strategy, and debatable trial tactics do not establish ineffective assistance of counsel.” State v. Conway, 109 Ohio St.3d 412, 2006-Ohio-2815, 848 N.E.2d 810, ¶ 101.

{¶ 91} Spaulding also argues that trial counsel should have objected when Detective Morrison vouched for Griffin’s second identification as follows:

Q: Now, in your experience as a detective, do you feel that he was honest in the statement that he gave?

A: The second one, yes.

Spaulding is correct in this regard; counsel should have objected to this testimony. See State v. Young, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 79243, 2002-Ohio-2744, 2002 WL 1265581, ¶ 75-77 (officer’s testimony that a witness was “telling the truth” “improperly invaded the province of the jury because only it can determine witness credibility”). But, even so, Spaulding cannot establish that “but for” Morrison’s vouching, the result of his trial would have differed. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674. Even without Griffin’s identification, the jury heard Wilbur’s testimony that Spaulding was at 1104 Grant Street with Singleton and Thomas moments before their murders, and ballistics evidence linked those murders with the shooting of Griffin several hours earlier. Furthermore, the jury knew that Griffin initially identified Spaulding only minutes after his first viewing of the photo array and also had the opportunity to view video recordings of Griffin identifying Spaulding in May 2012 and September 2012.

{¶ 92} We reject Spaulding’s second proposition of law.

2. Spaulding’s statements

{¶ 93} Police questioned Spaulding three times after his arrest, once on December 16, 2011, and twice on December 19, 2011. During the third interrogation, Spaulding made statements about his movements on December 14 and 15, his actions during the previous week, and his criminal history. In proposition of law No. 4, Spaulding claims that trial counsel should have moved to suppress the third interrogation.

{¶ 94} The “failure to file a suppression motion does not constitute per se ineffective assistance of counsel.” Kimmelman v. Morrison, 477 U.S. 365, 384, 106 S.Ct. 2574, 91 L.Ed.2d 305 (1986). Instead, the ordinary two-part Strickland analysis for ineffective-assistance claims applies. Id. Thus, Spaulding must both “prove that there was a basis to suppress the evidence in question,” State v. Brown, 115 Ohio St.3d 55, 2007-Ohio-4837, 873 N.E.2d 858, ¶ 65, and demonstrate a reasonable probability that had the evidence been suppressed, “the result of the proceeding would have been different,” Strickland at 694.

{¶ 95} Spaulding asserts two bases for suppressing the statements he made during the third interrogation: (1) he unequivocally invoked his right to counsel and (2) the conditions of the interrogation were unduly coercive. He then argues that he was prejudiced by the admission of these statements because they exposed the jurors to “184 pages of discussion about Spaulding’s criminal history and close ties to Akron’s criminal community.” For example, Spaulding referred to his prior domestic-violence convictions, his drug use, and the recent shooting of his cousin.

{¶ 96} Here, we cannot find ineffective assistance because, even assuming that the third interrogation should have been suppressed, Spaulding cannot satisfy Strickland ⅛ second prong. Spaulding’s assertion of prejudice turns solely on his concerns about statements that revealed aspects of his criminal history. But the jury learned about Spaulding’s criminal history from numerous sources, including his other statements to police. And Spaulding has failed to identify specific noncumulative information about his criminal history, let alone show a “reasonable probability” that excluding this information would have led to his acquittal on any of the charged offenses. See State v. Madrigal, 87 Ohio St.3d 378, 389-390, 721 N.E.2d 52 (2000). As described above, eyewitness identifications and ballistics evidence provided ample basis for the jury to convict Spaulding of murder and attempted murder.

{¶ 97} For these reasons, proposition of law No. 4 fails.

D. Trial Phase

1. Jury view

{¶ 98} With the agreement of both parties, the trial court permitted the jury to view 1104 Grant Street. In proposition of law No. 3, Spaulding takes issue with how the jury view was conducted, arguing that his due-process rights were violated and that he received ineffective assistance of counsel.

{¶ 99} First, Spaulding objects to the absence of any record of the jury view. Before the jury view, the prosecutor explained to the court that she and defense counsel had agreed that neither of them would address the jury while they were at the scene. Instead, the bailiff would read written instructions prepared by the state and approved by the defense. Given this arrangement, Spaulding’s trial counsel waived the court reporter’s presence at the jury view. The record includes a copy of the prepared instructions, but there is otherwise no documentation of what happened during the jury view.

{¶ 100} Spaulding argues that due process entitles him to a complete record, including a record of the jury view. But “[w]e will not reverse because of unrecorded proceedings when the defendant failed to object and fails to demonstrate material prejudice.” State v. Drummond, 111 Ohio St.3d 14, 2006-Ohio-5084, 854 N.E.2d 1038, ¶ 135. Here, Spaulding’s counsel not only failed to object, they expressly waived the reporter’s presence, thus inviting any error. See Hal Artz Lincoln-Mercury, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 28 Ohio St.3d 20, 502 N.E.2d 590 (1986), paragraph one of the syllabus (“A party will not be permitted to take advantage of an error which he himself invited or induced”); State v. Campbell, 90 Ohio St.3d 320, 324, 738 N.E.2d 1178 (2000) (invited error may be found “when a party has * * * affirmatively consented to a [proposed] procedure”).

{¶ 101} Moreover, any assertion of prejudice here is purely speculative. Spaulding concedes that it is impossible to know whether “anything improper occur[red]” without a record. And he did not take advantage of S.Ct.Prac.R. 11.03(D), which allows appellants to supplement the record with a statement of proceedings “when no report was made or when the transcript is unavailable.” Instead, the record that is available undermines Spaulding’s concerns. Shortly after the jury view, the trial judge asked defense counsel whether “any problems * * * developed on the jury view,” and he said “no.”

{¶ 102} Spaulding also claims that his counsel were constitutionally ineffective for waiving the reporter’s presence at the jury view. But even assuming deficient performance, Spaulding would need to rely on evidence outside the record to establish prejudice under Strickland. As such, this argument is “not appropriately considered on a direct appeal.” Madrigal, 87 Ohio St.3d at 391, 721 N.E.2d 52 (because proof outside the record was needed to establish ineffective assistance of counsel, the claim was not appropriate on direct appeal).

{¶ 103} As a second basis for relief on this claim, Spaulding asserts that “[t]he record * * * suggests that [he] was not present during the jury view.” Under Ohio law, defendants have a waivable right to attend a jury view, R.C. 2945.16, but we have not recognized any concomitant constitutional guarantee. State v. Were, 118 Ohio St.3d 448, 2008-Ohio-2762, 890 N.E.2d 263, ¶ 96. Here, it is unclear whether Spaulding attended the jury view. But, if anything, the record suggests that he did; at a hearing the day before the jury view, the parties discussed arrangements for transporting him to the jury view. At that time, the court explained that Spaulding would be transported separately in a van with blacked-out windows and that he would stay inside the van during the jury view. Defense counsel assented to this procedure, noting “that’s the way it’s always done or has been done.”

{¶ 104} But even if Spaulding did not attend the jury view, he cannot show that he was prejudiced by his alleged absence. See Were at ¶ 98. Defense counsel were present to represent his interests, and they told the court that nothing improper had occurred during the jury view. Under these circumstances, we cannot conclude at this time that Spaulding was deprived of due process or effective assistance of counsel.

{¶ 105} Finally, Spaulding argues that his due-process rights were violated because the trial judge did not attend the jury view and that his counsel were ineffective for waiving the judge’s presence. As other courts have noted, it is “generally considered desirable” to have a trial judge’s oversight during a jury view. Devin v. DeTella, 101 F.3d 1206, 1210 (7th Cir.1996); accord Clemente v. Carnicon-Puerto Rico Mgt. Assocs., 52 F.3d 383, 386 (1st Cir.1995), abrogated on other grounds, United States v. Gray, 199 F.3d 547, 548 (1st Cir.1999). However, a judge’s absence does not automatically violate due process; instead, it is necessary to review “the record as a whole to determine whether the circumstances under which the jury view was conducted can be said to have denied [the defendant] a fair trial.” Devin at 1209. And that analysis occurs against the backdrop of our holding that a jury’s “view of a crime scene is neither evidence nor a crucial stage in the proceedings.” State v. Richey, 64 Ohio St.3d 353, 367, 595 N.E.2d 915 (1992), overruled on other grounds, State v. McGuire, 80 Ohio St.3d 390, 402-404, 686 N.E.2d 1112 (1997).

{¶ 106} Here, we reject Spaulding’s claims for two reasons. First, the record suggests that the judge did accompany the jury to 1104 Grant Street. The transcript states, “The court, counsel, and jury proceeded to view the premises.” Second, Spaulding has failed to show how the judge’s alleged absence prejudiced him. The record indicates that the bailiff was the only person to address the jury during the jury view, and she followed a written script that defense counsel had preapproved. In addition, the day after the jury view, defense counsel told the court that nothing improper had occurred at the jury view. Thus, the judge’s alleged absence did not violate Spaulding’s constitutional rights.

{¶ 107} Proposition of law No. 3 fails.

2. Prior bad acts

{¶ 108} In proposition of law No. 6, Spaulding asserts that “much—if not the majority—of’ the state’s evidence at trial “concerned showing the jury that [he] is a career criminal and all-around bad human being.” He then cites specific evidence of four “prior bad acts” and argues that it was inadmissible. Spaulding also contends that his trial counsel were constitutionally ineffective because they did not object to this evidence.

a. Evid.R. 404(B)

{¶ 109} “Evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show action in conformity therewith.” Evid.R. 404(B). However, this evidence may be admissible for other purposes, such as to prove “motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident.” Id.; accord R.C. 2945.59.

{¶ 110} A trial court has broad discretion in deciding whether to admit or exclude other-acts evidence. See State v. Kirkland, 140 Ohio St.3d 73, 2014-Ohio-1966, 15 N.E.3d 818, ¶ 67. Thus, ordinarily we defer to a trial court’s evidentiary ruling unless the court “has clearly abused its discretion and the defendant has been materially prejudiced thereby.” State v. Hymore, 9 Ohio St.2d 122, 128, 224 N.E.2d 126 (1967). However, when a defendant fails to object to evidence at trial—as here—we review the claim for plain error only. State v. Dior, 120 Ohio St.3d 460, 2008-Ohio-6266, 900 N.E.2d 565, ¶ 70.

b. Alleged events of November 28, 2011

{¶ 111} Spaulding argues that the trial court erred by admitting evidence of the alleged events at Singleton’s apartment on November 28, 2011, because he was not charged with any crimes related to that incident in this case.

{¶ 112} At trial, Officer Woofter testified that he responded to Singleton’s 9-1-1 call on November 28. Singleton had reported that an unwanted guest was in her apartment with a gun. According to Woofter, Singleton was hysterical. She was yelling and screaming and said that the man—whom she later identified as Spaulding—was still on the property and that he had threatened “to kill her as revenge for having him arrested in the past.” Jeff Cutler, Spaulding’s probation officer, also testified that Singleton called him on November 29 to report Spaulding’s break-in. Cutler later verified that police had issued a warrant for Spaulding’s arrest after the incident.

{¶ 113} Although criminal charges for the November 28 incident were not part of this case, the trial court properly admitted evidence of Singleton’s reports about the incident and the outstanding warrant for Spaulding’s arrest. This evidence was directly relevant to one of the capital specifications attached to Singleton’s aggravated-murder count—that Spaulding murdered her to prevent her testimony about another criminal act. R.C. 2929.04(A)(8). And these events provided both context and a potential motive for the murders and other crimes that Spaulding was charged with committing. See Evid.R. 404(B) (other-acts evidence may be admitted to prove motive, intent, and absence of mistake or accident).

{¶ 114} This evidence was also relevant to prove an element of Count 7, menacing by stalking. Under R.C. 2903.211(A)(1), the state had to establish that Spaulding “engag[ed] in a pattern of conduct” that “knowingly cause[d]” Singleton to believe that he would cause her physical harm or mental distress. Thus, his past domestic violence was relevant to prove both a pattern of conduct and also that he knew that his conduct would cause Singleton to believe that he was going to harm her. Horsley, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 05AP-350, 2006-Ohio-1208, 2006 WL 648849, at ¶ 25. “Other acts evidence can be particularly useful in prosecutions for menacing by stalking because it can assist the jury in understanding that a defendant’s otherwise innocent appearing acts, when put into the context of previous contacts he has had with the victim, may be knowing attempts to cause mental distress.” Bilder, 99 Ohio App.3d at 658, 651 N.E.2d 502; see State v. Hart, 12th Dist. Warren No. CA2008-06-079, 2009-Ohio-997, 2009 WL 580808, ¶ 12 (“In prosecutions for menacing by stalking, the victim’s belief that the defendant will cause physical harm is an element of the offense which is often intertwined with their past interactions”).

{¶ 115} Moreover, to the extent that Spaulding is challenging Singleton’s statements to Officers Woofter and Cutler as inadmissible hearsay, his argument fails. The trial court could reasonably have concluded that Singleton’s statements to Woofter were excited utterances, see Evid.R. 803(2), since he testified that she was in a hysterical state. More importantly, Singleton’s statements to both Woofter and Cutler were not introduced for their truth, i.e., to prove Spaulding’s guilt of a crime committed on November 28. Instead, they were introduced to show that Singleton had expressed fear of Spaulding and was attempting to enlist protection from law enforcement.

{¶ 116} The trial court did not err by admitting this evidence.

c. 2011 domestic-violence conviction

{¶ 117} Spaulding next challenges the admission at trial of evidence of his July 2011 conviction for felony domestic violence against Singleton. Cutler testified that Spaulding came under his supervision after receiving a three-year suspended sentence for the offense, but he did not provide any details about the nature of the incident.

{¶ 118} This testimony was properly admitted because Spaulding’s July 2011 conviction was not just other-acts evidence; it was proof of an element of Count 6. To convict Spaulding of third-degree-felony domestic violence, the state had to prove that he had two or more prior domestic-violence convictions. R.C. 2919.25(D)(4); see State v. Harrington, 3d Dist. Logan No. 08-01-20, 2002-Ohio-2190, 2002 WL 987836, ¶ 10 (“When a prior offense acts to transform a crime by increasing its degree, the prior offense becomes an element of the crime and must be proven by the State beyond a reasonable doubt”). The state may prove a prior conviction by introducing a judgment entry—including the defendant’s sentence, see R.C. 2945.75(B)(1)—but that is not “the only method to prove it.” (Emphasis sic.) State v. Gwen, 134 Ohio St.3d 284, 2012-Ohio-5046, 982 N.E.2d 626, ¶ 14.

{¶ 119} Moreover, even if the evidence were not admissible for this purpose, Spaulding’s past domestic violence against Singleton was relevant to proving Count 7, menacing by stalking. The 2011 conviction supported the state’s claim that Spaulding “knew that his conduct would cause the victim to believe that [he] was going to harm [her].” Horsley, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 05AP-350, 2006-Ohio-1208, 2006 WL 648849, at ¶ 25.

{¶ 120} The trial court did not err by allowing Cutler to testify about the 2011 conviction.

d. 2010 domestic-violence convictions

{¶ 121} Spaulding also challenges Detective McGee’s testimony about the theft of Singleton’s car radio in April 2010 and Spaulding’s related convictions for domestic violence and telecommunications harassment. He asserts that “[e]ssen-tially all” of McGee’s testimony on direct examination was “hearsay from Singleton accusing Spaulding of various criminal acts and civil torts.”

{¶ 122} Detective McGee responded to two 9-1-1 calls from Singleton on April 18, 2010. He testified that she was very distraught and initially too scared to tell him that she suspected Spaulding. Later, she revealed that Spaulding had been repeatedly contacting her since the night before; he had sent more than 30 text messages and had left several voicemail messages, three of which McGee recorded. McGee described some of the text messages as “very threatening” and recalled one that said, “This radio is going to look good in my car.” Spaulding spoke to McGee on Singleton’s phone and advised him, “Tell that bitch I got something for her.” According to McGee, Singleton was concerned that Spaulding might follow her—especially since he knew her car. She said that Spauldi