State v. Blanton, 206 N.E.3d 14

Background:

Defendant Gregory Blanton was indicted for purposeful murder, two counts of felony murder, two counts of felonious assault, one count of endangering children, and firearm specifications after K.C. was shot to death in her driveway on May 9, 2020.
Multiple neighbors heard rapid gunfire; an eyewitness (Jesse Smith) saw Blanton standing over K.C. and firing multiple shots. Eleven 9mm casings from a single weapon were recovered; the gun and vehicle were never recovered.
Cell‑site analysis placed Blanton's phone at the scene; Blanton turned himself in after the shooting and later testified that he "blacked out" after being struck and awoke with the gun in his hand.
The defense presented psychological evidence; the court appointed a second‑opinion psychologist (Dr. Bergman) who testified Blanton did not experience a blackout but rather intermittent explosive disorder.
At trial the court denied a requested involuntary‑manslaughter instruction, gave a blackout (affirmative‑defense) instruction but added language (from Cutlip) clarifying loss of memory alone does not establish unconsciousness, and the jury convicted Blanton; he was sentenced to 15 years‑to‑life plus a consecutive 3‑year firearm term (aggregate 18 years‑to‑life).

Issues:

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Blanton)	Held
Whether involuntary manslaughter is a required lesser‑included instruction of murder/felony‑murder	Trial court correctly need not give involuntary manslaughter because underlying felonies (felonious assault) support felony murder	Requested involuntary manslaughter should have been submitted as a lesser included offense	Court: No error — involuntary manslaughter unnecessary because felony‑murder/felonious assault were the proper charges; refusal harmless though court used imperfect reasoning
Whether adding Cutlip language to blackout instruction was error	Language correctly warns jury that mere memory loss ≠ unconsciousness and is a correct statement of law	Addition prejudiced defense and improperly diminished blackout defense	Court: No abuse of discretion; language is a correct, pertinent statement of law and did not mislead jury
Whether convictions were against the manifest weight of the evidence based on defendant's blackout testimony	Blackout defense warranted; verdict against weight because jury disbelieved defendant	State points to eyewitness testimony, number/targeting of shots, expert rebuttal — jury entitled to reject testimony	Court: Not against manifest weight — overwhelming evidence supported voluntariness and intent; jury did not lose its way
Whether trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance (multiple subclaims)	N/A — defendant alleges counsel erred (e.g., failed to secure funded expert, delayed opening, failed hearsay objections, called adverse expert, failed to request certain instructions)	State: Counsel's choices were reasonable strategy; no prejudice shown; many claims speculative or meritless	Court: All six ineffective‑assistance subclaims denied — counsel's tactics fell within reasonable strategic range and defendant failed Strickland prejudice/deficiency showing

Key Cases Cited

State v. White, 29 N.E.3d 939 (Ohio 2015) (trial court must give all instructions relevant and necessary for jury to weigh evidence)
State v. Comen, 553 N.E.2d 640 (Ohio 1990) (principles on jury charge completeness and instruction discretion)
State v. Kidder, 513 N.E.2d 311 (Ohio 1987) (two‑part test for lesser‑included offense instruction)
State v. Thomas, 533 N.E.2d 286 (Ohio 1988) (lesser‑included offense instruction principles)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two‑prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
State v. Bradley, 538 N.E.2d 373 (Ohio 1989) (adopts Strickland standard in Ohio)
State v. Ireland, 121 N.E.3d 285 (Ohio 2018) (recognizes blackout/unconsciousness as an affirmative defense)
State v. Thompkins, 678 N.E.2d 541 (Ohio 1997) (standard for manifest‑weight review)
State v. Wilkins, 415 N.E.2d 303 (Ohio 1980) (definition/requirements for lesser‑included offense analysis)
State v. Shane, 590 N.E.2d 272 (Ohio 1992) (voluntary manslaughter defined; sudden passion/sudden fit of rage element)