State v. Allen, 2022 Ohio 1180

Defendant Brian M. Allen was indicted on two counts of gross sexual imposition alleging sexual contact with L.L., who was born August 2, 2012 and thus under 13 during the charged period.
Mother testified she observed at least two concerning incidents when L.L. was very young and later found drawings of penises on L.L.’s bedroom wall and pages of a library book after the family moved in with the aunt in 2018.
Family members reported disclosures; law enforcement investigated and Detective Wheaton interviewed Allen three times.
During a partially recorded third interview, Allen admitted rubbing the outside of L.L.’s vagina and placing her hand on his exposed penis; he later claimed the admission was coerced by anxiety and medication.
The trial court admitted 17 photographs of the bedroom drawings and book images over defense objection; the jury convicted Allen on both counts.
The court sentenced Allen to 48 months on each count to be served concurrently; Allen appealed raising three assignments of error.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admission of photographs (plain error / Evid.R. 401/403)	Photos were relevant because the drawings in the child’s bedroom and book tend to make it more probable Allen caused sexual contact; probative value outweighed prejudice.	Drawings were found years after alleged offenses, lack direct connection to Allen, and were inflammatory and unfairly prejudicial.	Photographs were properly admitted; probative value was not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice; no plain error.
Manifest weight of the evidence	State relied on Allen’s recorded admissions and the child’s forensic interview as credible and consistent with the offenses.	Allen argued his admissions were false due to coercion, medication effects, delay in reporting, and inconsistencies in witnesses.	Convictions were not against the manifest weight of the evidence; jury permissibly credited admissions and victim statements.
Ineffective assistance of counsel	Trial counsel’s choices were reasonable trial strategy and objections would have been futile; no prejudice shown.	Counsel failed to object to numerous inflammatory photos and thereby prejudiced the defense.	Counsel was not ineffective; performance was not shown deficient and any objection would have been futile or not outcome-determinative.

State v. Rogers, 38 N.E.3d 860 (2015) (plain error standard and caution in noticing plain error)
State v. Barnes, 759 N.E.2d 1240 (Ohio 2001) (courts should notice plain error only in exceptional circumstances to prevent manifest miscarriage of justice)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-part ineffective assistance of counsel test)
State v. Smith, 684 N.E.2d 668 (Ohio 1997) (sheer number of nongruesome photographs rarely requires reversal)
State v. McKelton, 70 N.E.3d 508 (2016) (standard for manifest weight review)