State v. Baskin
137 N.E.3d 613
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- On December 3, 2017, Deandre Baskin entered T.H.’s residence, assaulted her, and prevented her from leaving; she escaped during a trip to Dollar Tree. T.H. had an active protection order against Baskin.
- Grand jury indicted Baskin on aggravated burglary (F1), abduction (F3), domestic violence (F4), and violating a protection order (F5).
- At trial (Mar. 5–6, 2018) Baskin repeatedly interrupted court, attempted to fire counsel and asked to represent himself; the trial court denied both requests.
- Because of Baskin’s courtroom outbursts, the court removed him temporarily; he watched by remote video and later returned.
- The court called the victim as a court’s witness under Evid.R. 614, elicited prior inconsistent statements from her, and admitted several recordings/extrinsic statements; the phone call to police was admitted as an excited utterance.
- Jury convicted on all counts; trial court imposed consecutive sentences totaling 14 years. Baskin appealed raising four assignments of error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Baskin) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Denial of substitute counsel and self-representation | Court may deny untimely or meritless requests that would disrupt proceedings | Request was valid; court improperly weighed jury/time interests over his rights | Court: Denial not an abuse of discretion — requests were untimely, equivocal, and not showing breakdown jeopardizing counsel effectiveness |
| 2. Removal from courtroom during testimony | Removal justified to preserve order after repeated warnings; remote presence preserves rights | Removal was precipitous and deprived confrontation/fair trial | Court: No abuse — defendant warned, disruptive conduct continued, remote view and jury admonitions preserved fairness |
| 3. Admission of other-acts/prior conviction under Evid.R. 404(B) | Prior DV conviction is an element for enhanced domestic-violence charge and thus admissible under R.C. procedures | Admission of prior acts (different victim and uncharged incidents) was unfairly prejudicial | Court: Prior conviction properly admitted to prove element of felony domestic-violence; other-acts claims not shown to require reversal |
| 4. Calling victim as court’s witness and admitting prior statements (Evid.R. 614/613/803) | Court may call an uncooperative witness; prior inconsistent statements may be used for impeachment and some (911 call) fit excited-utterance exception | Designation allowed State to use impeachment as subterfuge to present hearsay as substantive evidence; jury not instructed limiting use | Court: No reversible error — calling witness was within discretion, foundation for impeachment met, 911 call admissible as excited utterance, any erroneous hearsay admission was harmless/cumulative |
Key Cases Cited
- Illinois v. Allen, 397 U.S. 337 (1970) (trial court may remove disruptive defendant to maintain order)
- Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975) (defendant has constitutional right to self-representation if clear, unequivocal, and timely)
- State v. Henness, 79 Ohio St.3d 53 (1997) (defendant must show attorney-client breakdown jeopardizing effective assistance to warrant substitution)
- State v. Coleman, 37 Ohio St.3d 286 (1988) (standard for discharge of appointed counsel—attorney-client relationship breakdown required)
- State v. Jones, 135 Ohio St.3d 10 (2012) (excited-utterance analysis; timing and spontaneity factors)
- State v. Cassano, 96 Ohio St.3d 94 (2002) (timeliness required for Faretta claim; late requests may be denied)
- State v. McKelton, 148 Ohio St.3d 261 (2016) (limits on treating prior inconsistent statements as substantive evidence absent hearsay exception)