State v. Aponte
2016 Ohio 7309
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2016Background
- On Dec. 26, 2014, Jermaria Clardy was assaulted in a convenience-store parking lot; surveillance footage captured most of the incident.
- Cynthia Aponte was charged with assault (R.C. 2903.13(A)) and disorderly conduct (Columbus City Code 2317.11(A)(1)).
- Clardy and her brother identified Aponte at trial as one of multiple attackers; Aponte denied being present.
- The prosecution played the surveillance video at trial but apparently without the audio; Clardy had previously recorded the surveillance footage on her cell phone and, on that recording, made an audible comment after the assault that she "couldn’t see...all that blood in my face."
- Aponte was convicted by a jury on both counts and sentenced in Franklin County Municipal Court.
- Aponte appealed, arguing (1) the State solicited false testimony (Clardy’s ID was allegedly unreliable because of her comment about not being able to see), and (2) trial counsel was ineffective for not introducing the recording’s audio or emphasizing that comment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the State violated due process by soliciting false testimony (Clardy's ID) | Clardy reliably identified Aponte at trial; her testimony was admissible and the State did not knowingly use false testimony | Clardy’s post-assault comment that she "couldn’t see" proves her identification was false and the State knowingly presented it | Court held appellant failed to show testimony was false or that prosecutor knew it was false; due-process claim overruled |
| Whether defense counsel was ineffective for not introducing/using the recording's audio about Clardy's vision | N/A (prosecution) | Counsel performed deficiently by not emphasizing the audio; prejudice likely altered outcome | Court held counsel was not ineffective: the comment did not show inability to identify Aponte, counsel had already cross‑examined Clardy about vision, and no reasonable probability of a different result |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two‑part test for ineffective assistance: deficient performance and prejudice)
- Bradley v. State, 42 Ohio St.3d 136 (Ohio 1989) (no need to address both Strickland prongs if one is not shown)
- Jackson v. State, 107 Ohio St.3d 53 (Ohio 2005) (discusses standards for evaluating counsel performance)
- Hale v. State, 119 Ohio St.3d 118 (Ohio 2008) (standard for showing prejudice under Strickland)