State v. Blanda, 2014 Ohio 2234

Background

Blanda indicted in Butler County for domestic violence, child endangering, and felony murder after shaking his five-month-old daughter, who died from intracranial hemorrhage.
Jury trial resulted in guilty verdicts; defendant sentenced to indefinite term of 23 years to life, later merged convictions on remand to 15-to-life for murder.
During deliberations, jurors sought clarification on felony murder elements and foreseeability; trial court provided written and in-chamber responses after conference with counsel, while Blanda was not present.
No transcript or record of in-chambers discussions was made; counsel signed the juror-question responses prior to their return to the jury.
Blanda filed a pro se postconviction petition in 2010; later amended petitions added new claims, including due-process challenges to in-chambers discussions and jury-question handling.
Trial court eventually denied the postconviction petitions, citing res judicata; on appeal, the court of appeals upheld the denial, affirming the judgment.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the amended postconviction petition was properly considered	Blanda argues the trial court erred striking the amendment.	State contends clerical/record-keeping issues do not undermine the grant of leave to amend.	Clerical error not reversible; no error in denying amendment.
Whether postconviction claims were barred by res judicata	Blanda contends outside-record evidence warrants relief despite prior final judgment.	State asserts res judicata bars claims that could have been raised on direct appeal.	No reversible error; res judicata applicable, with limited outside-record evidence exception not satisfied.
Whether absence during in-chambers jury discussion violated due process	Blanda argues his absence during in-chambers discussion tainted due process.	State maintains absence during noncritical stage does not violate rights.	Under Campbell, absence during noncritical stage not reversible; no due-process violation.
Whether foreseeability is an essential element of felony murder and the court properly instructed	Blanda claims the judge mis-stated law by treating foreseeability as essential.	State maintains foreseeability is not an essential element, only a component of causation.	Foreseeability is not an essential element; jury instruction proper.
Overall sufficiency of postconviction relief reasoning	Blanda asserts trial court erred in denying relief on all grounds.	State contends res judicata and lack of merit foreclose relief.	Court affirmed denial of postconviction relief; no reversible error.

Key Cases Cited

State v. Campbell, 90 Ohio St.3d 320 (2000) (absence at in-chambers discussions not a critical stage; no reversal)
State v. Martin, 2009-Ohio-5303 (2d Dist. Montgomery 2009) (no error when written response given to jury after consult with counsel)
State v. Ferguson, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 86439 (2006-Ohio-799) (noncritical jury discussion; not reversible error)
State v. Wagers, 2012-Ohio-2258 (12th Dist. Preble 2012) (abuse of discretion standard for postconviction relief)
State v. Hibbard, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2002-05-129 (2003-Ohio-5104) (trial court may clarify or answer jury questions during deliberation)
State v. Sexton, 2002-Ohio-3617 (10th Dist. Franklin 2002) (foreseeability component of proximate cause; not equal to probable cause)