State v. Bragg
2017 Ohio 5726
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Defendant Daniel Bragg was tried by jury on five counts of rape of a child under 13; convicted on Count One and acquitted on Counts Two–Five.
- The victim, an 11-year-old girl, testified that Bragg forced her to perform oral sex, performed oral sex on her, and had intercourse with her between Oct. 2015 and May 2016.
- Physical evidence included a camisole and underwear found in Bragg’s bedroom and bloodstained underwear submitted to BCI; Bragg admitted kissing the victim.
- Witnesses included the victim, her father, Joseph Blue (father of a different child), and nurse practitioner Kelly Morrison who testified about the victim’s developmental delays, epilepsy, and communication issues.
- Bragg was sentenced to a mandatory term of 10 years to life imprisonment and appealed, raising ineffective-assistance claims (failure to object to hearsay, leading questions, and expert testimony) and a cumulative-error claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| I. Failure to object to hearsay testimony | Any improper hearsay was harmless because the victim testified and was cross-examined | Counsel was ineffective for not objecting to hearsay statements by Joseph Blue that others told him the victim had been assaulted | Court: No prejudice; any error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; assignment overruled |
| II. Failure to object to leading questions | Leading questions were within the trial court's discretion and used to develop testimony; isolated and not pervasive | Counsel was ineffective for not objecting to prosecutor's leading questions to witnesses | Court: Not ineffective assistance; questions were not egregious like Poling and did not affect outcome |
| III. Failure to exclude expert testimony beyond qualification | Morrison's testimony about epilepsy/autism was within her scope as a pediatric NP and helped explain observed communication/memory issues | Counsel was ineffective for not objecting under Evid.R. 702 and 403 to testimony about memory and autism effects | Court: Testimony related to developmental delays and was within her specialized knowledge; no prejudice shown |
| IV. Cumulative error | N/A (State argues errors are insubstantial or harmless) | Trial errors cumulatively deprived Bragg of a fair trial | Court: No cumulative prejudice; because individual claims fail, cumulative-error claim fails; assignment overruled |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Lockhart v. Fretwell, 506 U.S. 364 (U.S. 1993) (prejudice analysis under Strickland)
- Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (U.S. 2011) (deferential review of counsel performance and prejudice standard)
- Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (U.S. 2010) (difficulty of prevailing on ineffective-assistance claims)
- United States v. Chapman, 386 U.S. 18 (U.S. 1967) (harmless-error standard for constitutional errors)
- State v. Bradley, 42 Ohio St.3d 136 (Ohio 1989) (Ohio's adoption of Strickland two-prong test)
For these reasons the appellate court affirmed the conviction and sentence.