State v. Akers, 2019 Ohio 5171

Background:

On Nov. 9, 2018, a Bellefontaine officer attempted a traffic stop of a yellow pickup for equipment and traffic violations; the driver fled after lights (and later siren) were activated.
The officer terminated pursuit; Logan County deputies later located and followed the same truck, attempted their own stop, and the vehicle again fled at high speeds (exceeding 100 mph), ran signs, and endangered other drivers.
The driver abandoned the running truck at an apartment complex; Akers’ ID and cards were found in the vehicle and Akers later appeared at a relative’s apartment.
Akers was indicted on two counts of Failure to Comply with an Order or Signal of a Police Officer (one for Bellefontaine PD, one for Logan County Sheriff), tried by jury, and convicted on both counts.
At sentencing the court imposed 18 months for the first count and 36 months for the second, to be served consecutively (total 54 months); Akers appealed raising three assignments of error: (1) mistrial for a witness referring to his incarceration, (2) inadequate inquiry into a possible juror sighting of him in handcuffs, and (3) that the two counts were allied offenses and should merge.

Issues:

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Akers)	Held
Whether a mistrial was required when a witness mentioned the defendant was in jail	The comment was fleeting, promptly cured by an explicit curative instruction, and juries are presumed to follow instructions	The mention prejudiced the jury; the curative instruction was insufficient; counsel ineffective for not objecting to the curative instruction	No abuse of discretion: fleeting remark cured by immediate instruction; no ineffective-assistance shown
Whether the court erred by not personally questioning a juror who may have seen the defendant in handcuffs	Bailiff inquiry indicated the juror did not actually see handcuffs; brief/inadvertent outside-the-courtroom view is not prejudicial and presumption-of-innocence instructions suffice	The court should have directly interviewed the juror; counsel ineffective for not requesting further inquiry	No error: record shows no juror actually saw handcuffs; any sighting would be brief/inadvertent and curable; no ineffective-assistance shown
Whether the two Failure-to-Comply convictions are allied offenses that must merge	The two failures were separate events with separate victims (different agencies/officers), separate probable cause/stops, and separate animus, so convictions may stand separately	The conduct was a single continuous course of conduct in the same area and should merge	Convictions do not merge: two distinct stops/separate acts, different agencies/officers, and separable harm/animus

Key Cases Cited

State v. Trimble, 122 Ohio St.3d 297 (2009) (fleeting mention of prior arrest followed by prompt curative instruction does not require mistrial)
State v. Ruff, 143 Ohio St.3d 114 (2015) (framework for allied-offenses analysis: import, separate conduct, separate animus)
Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (1983) (abuse-of-discretion standard)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
State v. Kidder, 32 Ohio St.3d 279 (1987) (brief, inadvertent, outside-the-courtroom view of a defendant in custody produces slight danger of prejudice)
State v. Garner, 74 Ohio St.3d 49 (1995) (presumption that juries follow trial-court instructions)
State v. Bradley, 42 Ohio St.3d 136 (1989) (failure to prove either deficient performance or prejudice defeats an ineffective-assistance claim)
State v. Ahmed, 103 Ohio St.3d 27 (2004) (trial-court discretion on mistrial motions)