State v. Benitez
2013 Ohio 2334
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Benitez was convicted after a joint trial on multiple charges arising from violations of a domestic protection order and stalking allegations tied to Marlena Ramos; the cases were consolidated for trial from four separate indictments; the jury acquitted on some counts but found him guilty on three VPO counts and two counts of menacing by stalking with a history-of-violence enhancement; one VPO count was reduced from a felony to a misdemeanor based on the felony-in-the-course element; he was sentenced to 12 months in prison with 180 days concurrent plus five years of community control; the protective order covered November 23, 2011 through February 2012 during which the alleged incidents occurred; the incidents included a January 8, 2012 call, a February 14 gift, and a February 22–23 pattern of drive-by incidents and a threatening text.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Indictment notice sufficiency for Counts 1, 3, 9 | Benitez contends lack of notice due to victim/history details | Benitez argues indictment failed to identify victim/history | Overruled; notice adequate and consistent across indictments |
| Due process harmed by defense-elicited incarceration reference | State asserts no error due to invited error | Benitez claims incarceration referenced to jury without cure | Overruled; invited-error doctrine applies |
| Effective assistance of counsel—indictment and joinder challenges | Benitez asserts counsel ineffective for not objecting to indictment and for joinder | State asserts strategy and lack of prejudice; joinder proper | Overruled; no deficient performance or prejudice shown |
| Sufficiency and weight of evidence for VPO and stalking | State proved pattern of conduct and history of violence | Benitez challenges sufficiency/weight | Overruled; evidence sufficient and not against weight |
| Cumulative error | Multiple alleged errors cumulatively prejudicial | Errors not shown to cumulatively prejudice | Overruled; no reversible cumulative error |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Muniz, 2010-Ohio-3720 (8th Dist. No. 93528 (Ohio)) (notice on underlying acts sufficient where multiple indictments exist)
- State v. Lightner, 2009-Ohio-2307 (3d Dist. No. 6-08-15 (Ohio)) (predicate acts identified within indictment for related offenses)
- State v. Doss, 2005-Ohio-775 (8th Dist. No. 84433 (Ohio)) (invited-error doctrine limits relief when defendant induced error)
- State v. West, 2013-Ohio-96 (8th Dist. Nos. 97391 and 97900 (Ohio)) (invited-error doctrine applies to trial strategy decisions)
- State v. Schaim, 65 Ohio St.3d 51, 600 N.E.2d 661 (1992) (joinder considerations and trial strategy favor preservation of joinder)
- State v. Diar, 120 Ohio St.3d 460, 2008-Ohio-6266 (Ohio Supreme Court) (Crim.R. 8(A) joinder standards; benefits of joinder)
- State v. Thomas, 61 Ohio St.2d 223, 400 N.E.2d 401 (1980) (joinder rationales; efficiency and consistency)