Cleveland v. Amoroso, 2015 Ohio 95

Background

Defendant Steven Amoroso was charged with domestic violence (R.C. 2919.25(A)) after an April 9, 2013 incident; bench trial followed.
Victim Patricia testified that Amoroso punched her in the throat, grabbed her and twisted her arm, and she called 911; she obtained a protection order the next day and did not seek medical treatment.
Officer Nicolas D’Amico responded, observed Patricia upset and crying on the stairs, and testified to Patricia’s out‑of‑court statements describing the assault; he noted no visible injuries but reported her complaints of wrist and throat pain.
Amoroso testified that Patricia was the primary aggressor, that she struck and kicked him, and that he only held her wrist to stop her from hitting him; he denied pushing her into a wall or striking her throat.
Trial court found Amoroso guilty, sentenced him to 180 days (suspended), a $1,000 fine, and one year active probation; on appeal the conviction was affirmed but the sentence was vacated and remanded for resentencing based on failure to afford allocution.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
1. Ineffective assistance of counsel	Defense strategy (eliciting prior incidents) was reasonable trial strategy; waiver of closing argument was strategic.	Counsel was ineffective for opening door to prior bad acts and for not making closing argument.	Denied — counsel's questioning and waiving closing were reasonable strategy; no prejudice shown.
2. Sufficiency of the evidence	Patricia’s testimony established elements of domestic violence beyond a reasonable doubt.	Conviction rests solely on victim testimony and lacked physical corroboration; court relied on other bad acts.	Denied — victim’s testimony, viewed in prosecution’s favor, was sufficient; absence of visible injury not dispositive.
3. Confrontation / hearsay (D’Amico’s testimony of victim’s statements)	Victim testified at trial and was cross‑examined; officer’s recounting falls under excited‑utterance exception.	Admission of victim’s statements via officer violated Confrontation Clause and were hearsay.	Denied — no confrontation violation; statements admissible as excited utterances and harmless if error.
4. Manifest weight of the evidence	Credible victim testimony supports verdict.	Inconsistencies and lack of visible injury render verdict against manifest weight.	Denied — appellate court, as "thirteenth juror," found no miscarriage of justice; conviction not against manifest weight.
5. Right of allocution at sentencing	No need to disturb sentence because record available to judge.	Court sentenced immediately without affording defendant or counsel opportunity to speak (Crim.R. 32(A)).	Granted — sentencing vacated and remanded because defendant was not afforded allocution; resentencing required.

Key Cases Cited

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective assistance standard for performance and prejudice)
State v. Bradley, 42 Ohio St.3d 136 (Ohio standard applying Strickland)
State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (distinguishing sufficiency and manifest weight reviews)
State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (sufficiency standard in Ohio)
Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (testimonial statements and Confrontation Clause)
State v. Bays, 87 Ohio St.3d 15 (bench trial: judge presumed to consider only competent evidence)
State v. Burke, 73 Ohio St.3d 399 (waiver of closing argument may be trial strategy)