Columbus v. Oppong
2016 Ohio 5590
Ohio Ct. App.2016Background
- On January 2, 2015 Kwadwo Oppong was charged in Columbus Municipal Court with OVI (impaired), failure to stop after an accident, and assured clear distance ahead; a jury found him guilty of OVI and failure to stop and the judge found him guilty of ACDA.
- Witnesses (bystanders and officers) observed erratic driving, collision, strong odor of alcohol, slurred speech, glassy/bloodshot eyes, and failed field sobriety tests; breath-test attempts were not recorded as successful.
- Appellant testified he is diabetic, missed medication and food that day, felt weak/confused, drank one glass of wine earlier, and described effects from missed medication; he also requested a blood/urine test which he says was denied.
- Defense sought to present testimony that appellant experienced a diabetic episode; the trial court limited lay testimony to appellant’s personal observations and required expert testimony to opine broadly that a diabetic episode mimics alcohol impairment.
- On appeal Oppong argued ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to investigate/subpoena and call his doctor, nephew, and wife (to corroborate the diabetic/medication defense and timeline). The municipal court conviction was affirmed by the Tenth District Court of Appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate/subpoena/call appellant's doctor, nephew, and wife | Counsel’s choices were reasonable trial strategy; record does not show a failure to investigate; evidence of impairment was strong | Counsel failed to secure key witnesses who would have supported a diabetic-episode defense, constituting deficient performance under Middletown v. Allen | Counsel was not ineffective: record is silent on inadequate investigation, calling witnesses was strategic, and appellant failed to show prejudice — conviction affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-part test for ineffective assistance: deficient performance and prejudice)
- Middletown v. Allen, 63 Ohio App.3d 443 (1989) (failure to subpoena an essential alibi witness can constitute ineffective assistance when the witness would clearly assist the defense)
- State v. Thompson, 141 Ohio St.3d 254 (2014) (trial counsel satisfies duty to investigate by making reasonable investigations; courts will not infer failure to investigate from a silent record)