State v. Bankston
2011 Ohio 6486
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Bankston was convicted at trial of domestic violence against Coles, with a prior DV conviction, and was sentenced to one year in prison.
- The March 7, 2010 incident occurred at Bankston's mother’s home; Coles was forced to flee and call 911 after Bankston grabbed her by the hair.
- Police documented hair loss and damage to the door; Bankston was later arrested.
- Two jailhouse recordings were played: (a) Bankston and his mother; (b) Bankston and Coles; both recorded while Bankston was jailed.
- The state used the recordings for impeachment and to refresh recollection; the court did not give limiting instructions or admit the recordings as exhibits.
- Bankston appeals on four assignments of error challenging the admissibility and impact of the recordings, the lack of limiting instructions on a prior conviction, ineffective assistance, and cumulative error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the jailhouse recordings were admissible against Bankston. | State argues recordings are impeachment and memory-refresh tools. | Bankston contends the recordings were unduly prejudicial and should be excluded. | Recordings were improperly admitted and prejudicial; reversal warranted. |
| Whether the court should have given limiting instructions about the prior DV conviction. | State relies on prior conviction to establish elements/credibility. | Limiting instruction should have been given to restrict use of prior conviction. | No plain error in omitting sua sponte limiting instruction on the prior conviction. |
| Whether defense counsel’s performance denying limiting instructions was ineffective. | Bankston asserts counsel failed to object/limit prejudicial evidence. | Counsel reasonably chose strategies; not ineffective. | No ineffective-assistance error established; actions within reasoned trial strategy. |
| Whether cumulative error requires reversal. | Prejudicial recordings cumulatively tainted trial. | Other evidence supported guilt; no cumulative error. | Cumulative error not established; but recordings independently warrant reversal. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Allen, 29 Ohio St.3d 53 (Ohio 1987) (prior-conviction proof beyond reasonable doubt when it affects degree of offense)
- State v. Ballew, 76 Ohio St.3d 244 (Ohio 1996) (use of writings to refresh recollection must be done out of the jury’s hearing)
- State v. Scott, 31 Ohio St.2d 1 (Ohio 1972) (witness may refresh memory using material, but not read aloud to jury)