State v. Barnes
2013 Ohio 2836
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Defendant Jack E. Barnes was arrested after a domestic disturbance; while handcuffed he was placed in the back of an officer’s cruiser in a closed garage with windows mostly up and pepper spray on his face.
- Barnes remained unattended in the cruiser for about 45 minutes, during which he testified he began to hyperventilate and felt he could not breathe.
- Barnes broke out a rear cruiser window with his foot to escape, cutting his leg; he was charged with vandalism (felony) and resisting arrest (misdemeanor).
- At trial defense counsel elicited testimony and argued Barnes broke the window because he couldn’t breathe, but counsel did not request a jury instruction on the affirmative defense of necessity.
- The jury convicted Barnes on both counts; he was sentenced to two years probation and appealed, arguing ineffective assistance for failing to request a necessity instruction and that convictions were against the manifest weight of the evidence.
- The appellate court reversed the vandalism conviction (finding prejudice from counsel’s failure to request the necessity instruction) and affirmed the resisting arrest conviction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to request a necessity jury instruction on the vandalism count | State: counsel’s conduct was reasonable trial strategy and no prejudice | Barnes: counsel elicited evidence supporting necessity and argued it in closing but failed to request the instruction, which was not strategic | Counsel was ineffective: evidence met burden of production for necessity and failure to request instruction prejudiced Barnes; vandalism conviction reversed |
| Whether the trial court committed plain error by not giving a necessity instruction sua sponte | State: no plain error; trial court not required to sua sponte give instruction | Barnes: court should have given instruction despite failure to request | Court: moot due to ineffective assistance ruling and no plain error found |
| Admissibility/prejudice of officer’s lapel video under Evid.R. 403(A) | State: video was probative of events during arrest | Barnes: video was unfairly prejudicial and should have been excluded | Waiver: defense largely stipulated/authenticated and did not preserve a clear objection; no plain error shown |
| Whether resisting arrest conviction was against the manifest weight of the evidence | Barnes: he did not know he was under arrest and therefore could not resist | State: evidence (video and testimony) showed intent, authority, seizure, and that Barnes understood he was under arrest | Conviction affirmed: jury did not lose its way; sufficient evidence supported resisting arrest verdict |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Bradley, 42 Ohio St.3d 136 (establishes Ohio ineffective-assistance standard adopting Strickland)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (two-part test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- State v. Cross, 58 Ohio St.2d 482 (necessity defense is narrowly applied)
- State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (standard for manifest-weight review)
- State v. DeHass, 10 Ohio St.2d 230 (deference to jury on witness credibility)
- State v. Darrah, 64 Ohio St.2d 22 (elements of an arrest for resisting-arrest analysis)