State v. Black
2017 Ohio 3001
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Defendant Robert N. Black, III was tried in consolidated Franklin County Muni. Ct. cases for domestic violence and assault arising from alleged assaults on his father (Dec. 31, 2015 and Apr. 2, 2016). A jury found him guilty; convictions merged for sentencing and the court sentenced on domestic-violence counts.
- Black, in custody throughout, asked the court (Apr. 25) to appear to the jury in street clothes and without shackles; the court’s written entry granted street clothes and law-library access but did not clearly resolve shackling.
- Voir dire (Apr. 26) included no explicit transcript reference to shackles, but later in proceedings the court and deputies discussed that Black’s shackles were on, and the court ordered him unshackled before opening statements (Apr. 27).
- During trial a juror reported that another juror had said Black had been seen in leg irons and had made an inappropriate remark about tasering him; the court excused that juror and collectively asked the remaining jurors if they could be impartial.
- Black did not contemporaneously object to being shackled at the venire; on appeal he claimed the visible shackles deprived him of due process and undermined the presumption of innocence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defendant was improperly tried while visibly shackled | State: any shackling issue waived by failure to timely object; harmless given evidence | Black: he appeared before the venire in visible leg shackles without a court finding of necessity, violating due process | Court: Black failed to preserve the issue (no timely objection); reviewed only for plain error and found none affecting substantial rights |
| Standard of review when shackling not timely objected to | State: plain-error review applies | Black: still claims constitutional error that requires reversal absent a finding justifying shackling | Held: plain-error (Crim.R. 52(B)); defendant must show error, obviousness, and effect on outcome; Black did not meet burden |
| Prejudice from jurors’ exposure/remarks about shackles and taser | State: substitution of juror and collective inquiry cured issue; evidence strongly supported guilt | Black: jurors saw shackles and discussed tasering, which prejudiced the jury and warrants reversal | Held: court substituted the juror, questioned the panel collectively, and found no showing that the shackling influenced the verdict; not a miscarriage of justice |
Key Cases Cited
- Deck v. Missouri, 544 U.S. 622 (visible shackling is unconstitutional absent an essential state interest)
- State v. Franklin, 97 Ohio St.3d 1 (Ohio recognition that visible restraints undermine presumption of innocence)
- Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a constitutional error was harmless)
- State v. McKnight, 107 Ohio St.3d 101 (brief/inadvertent juror sighting of restraints requires showing of actual prejudice)
- State v. Kidder, 32 Ohio St.3d 279 (brief, inadvertent sighting outside courtroom not usually prejudicial)
- State v. Barnes, 94 Ohio St.3d 21 (plain-error Crim.R. 52(B) standard explained)