State v. Behrle, 2021 Ohio 1386

Defendant Stephen J. Behrle was convicted after a June 20, 2019 incident at his ex-wife Deborah Carey's farm where he struck her boyfriend Jesse Holley three times with a metal jack-handle, causing serious injury.
Behrle claimed he acted in self-defense and sought to introduce evidence that Holley had previously been violent toward Carey. The trial court excluded that proffered evidence as hearsay/inadmissible.
Trial counsel twice approached the bench to explain Behrle's requests and declined to ask certain questions counsel believed would be harmful or unsupported; Behrle later argued counsel’s manner prejudiced sentencing.
Jurors heard testimony from Carey, Holley, and Behrle; the jury rejected self-defense. Counts were merged for sentencing and Behrle received 6–9 years in prison plus a no-contact order.
On appeal Behrle raised three assignments: (1) denial of right to present a complete defense (exclusion of prior-acts evidence); (2) ineffective assistance of counsel based on counsel’s courtroom remarks; and (3) sentence contrary to law because the court imposed a no-contact order alongside a prison term. The appellate court affirmed convictions, rejected assignments 1 and 2, but sustained assignment 3 and vacated the no-contact order.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Exclusion of prior-acts evidence (self-defense context)	State: exclusion proper under hearsay and Evid.R. limits; prior acts were not shown to be known by defendant or sufficiently temporally/ circumstantially linked.	Behrle: evidence of Holley's prior violence toward Carey was admissible to show Behrle's reasonable belief and was vital to his defense.	Court: No abuse of discretion in excluding the evidence; even if error, it was harmless because State disproved self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt.
Ineffective assistance of counsel (counsel's sidebar remarks)	State: counsel acted reasonably, preserved record, and avoided harmful/unfounded questioning; no prejudice shown.	Behrle: counsel’s public criticism and disclosure of his requests invited court to view Behrle as controlling, which impacted sentencing.	Court: Counsel’s conduct fell within reasonable trial strategy; no deficient performance or prejudice. Assignment overruled.
Legality of imposing no-contact order along with prison	State: impliedly that no-contact order was permissible as part of sentencing.	Behrle: trial court erred as a matter of law by imposing a community-control-style no-contact order while also imposing a prison term.	Court: Citing State v. Anderson, quashed the no-contact order as unauthorized when a prison sentence is imposed; vacated that portion of the judgment.

Crane v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 683 (U.S. 1986) (criminal defendant's right to present a complete defense).
California v. Trombetta, 467 U.S. 479 (U.S. 1984) (limits on due-process-based evidentiary claims).
Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14 (U.S. 1967) (scope and limits of the right to present witnesses/evidence).
United States v. Valenzuela-Bernal, 458 U.S. 858 (U.S. 1982) (testimony admissibility: relevance, materiality, and vitality to defense).
Taylor v. Illinois, 484 U.S. 400 (U.S. 1988) (evidence admissibility must comply with rules of evidence).
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-part ineffective-assistance standard).
Roe v. Flores-Ortega, 528 U.S. 470 (U.S. 2000) (prejudice requirement; courts may not speculate).
State v. Anderson, 143 Ohio St.3d 173 (Ohio 2015) (trial court generally cannot impose both a prison term and community-control sanctions—no-contact orders vacated when prison imposed).
State v. Burson, 38 Ohio St.2d 157 (Ohio 1974) (other-acts evidence must be temporally and circumstantially connected to the charged offense).