State v. Bohanan
2016 Ohio 8340
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Manaro F. Bohanan was indicted for aggravated robbery (with a three-year gun specification), two robbery counts, and having weapons while under disability arising from a February 3, 2014 Family Dollar incident; he pled not guilty.
- The parties executed a written "Entry of Stipulation of Use of Polygraph" under which Bohanan would submit to polygraph testing by an Ohio State Highway Patrol examiner and the examiner could testify unless the test was "inconclusive."
- The state nolled two robbery counts before trial; a jury convicted Bohanan of aggravated robbery and having weapons while under disability; he was sentenced to an aggregate 8-year term.
- Bohanan moved for a new trial and appealed, arguing trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by agreeing to a polygraph stipulation that allegedly failed to meet the requirements of State v. Souel.
- The trial court and the Tenth District affirmed, holding the stipulation complied with Souel and counsel's agreement reflected reasonable trial strategy under Strickland.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defense counsel was ineffective for agreeing to the polygraph stipulation | State: stipulation complied with Souel and admission remained within trial court discretion | Bohanan: stipulation failed Souel requirements (examiner selection, graphs, cross‑examination, court discretion), so counsel was deficient | Court: counsel not ineffective; stipulation complied with Souel and was reasonable strategy |
| Whether the stipulation permitted defense participation in examiner selection | State: stipulation required examiner be OSHP-employed and qualified; remedies available if not | Bohanan: stipulation ceded selection to state, limiting defense | Held: selection requirement (OSHP and qualifications) and ¶9 remedies provided adequate defense involvement |
| Whether the stipulation waived right to have examiner's graphs admitted | State: Souel contemplates conditional admission of graphs; parties may opt not to admit graphs | Bohanan: stipulation did not require graphs be submitted | Held: no violation—graphs need not be admitted in every case and defense chose strategy not to admit them |
| Whether the stipulation limited cross‑examination or judicial discretion | State: stipulation permitted examiner to testify and does not eliminate cross‑examination or court discretion; Souel preserves judge's discretion | Bohanan: language purportedly barred objections and removed court discretion | Held: trial court retained discretion; defense cross‑examined the examiner; stipulation did not bar scrutiny |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Souel, 53 Ohio St.2d 123 (1978) (sets Souel/Valdez conditions for admissibility of polygraph evidence)
- In re D.S., 111 Ohio St.3d 361 (2006) (polygraph results admissible only as corroboration/impeachment and only if conditions are met)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two‑part ineffective assistance standard: deficient performance and prejudice)
- State v. Bradley, 42 Ohio St.3d 136 (1989) (Ohio standard applying Strickland)
- State v. Valdez, 91 Ariz. 274 (1962) (original articulation of procedural conditions for admissible polygraph evidence)