State v. Bullard, 2021 Ohio 4044

On April 16, 2020, two eyewitnesses observed two street altercations between Lester Bullard and S.R.; one eyewitness (S.C.) testified she saw Bullard kick S.R., causing her to cry out and fall.
Later that evening police responded to a call; Bullard and S.R. both told officers the dispute was verbal and denied physical violence.
Bullard was charged with one count of domestic violence (R.C. 2919.25(A)). At a bench trial the court (on the State’s motion and without objection) called S.R. as the court’s witness under Evid.R. 614(A); S.R. denied physical abuse.
The State presented eyewitness testimony from S.C. and S.W.; Bullard testified in his own defense, asserting osteomyelitis prevented him from kicking and maintained the altercation was nonphysical.
The trial court found Bullard guilty, stating it credited the eyewitnesses (particularly S.C.) over Bullard and S.R.; Bullard moved for a new trial alleging ineffective assistance, which was heard and denied; he was then sentenced.
Bullard appealed raising four assignments: (1) sufficiency/manifest weight; (2) ineffective assistance of counsel; (3) error in court’s calling of S.R. as court’s witness; (4) denial of new trial. The appellate court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Bullard)	Held
1. Sufficiency / Manifest weight of evidence	S.C.’s eyewitness testimony proved Bullard knowingly caused physical harm; conviction supported	Evidence insufficient/against weight because later statements denied physical contact; eyewitnesses didn’t see contact at arrest incident; Bullard’s osteomyelitis made kicking impossible	Affirmed. Sufficient evidence (S.C.’s testimony). Not against manifest weight — court credited eyewitnesses
2. Ineffective assistance of counsel	Counsel’s omissions were trial tactics and, even if errors, produced no prejudice; any hearsay was harmless because declarant testified	Counsel failed to object to hearsay, failed to demand jury, failed to object to in‑court ID, failed to object to bruising testimony; prejudice shown	Affirmed. No deficient performance or no prejudice shown under Strickland/Bradley
3. Court calling victim as witness under Evid.R. 614(A)	Court properly exercised discretion to call S.R.; State requested it	Trial court erred in calling S.R. as court witness	Affirmed. Issue forfeited — Bullard failed to contemporaneously object; trial court has discretion to call witnesses
4. Denial of motion for new trial (Crim.R. 33)	New trial denial proper because ineffective assistance claim fails	Denial erroneous because trial counsel ineffective	Affirmed. New‑trial claim founded on ineffective assistance rejected

State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (1997) (standard of review for sufficiency of the evidence)
State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (1991) (evidence viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution for sufficiency review)
State v. Otten, 33 Ohio App.3d 339 (1986) (manifest‑weight standard and reversal reserved for exceptional cases)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two‑prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
State v. Bradley, 42 Ohio St.3d 136 (1989) (Ohio formulation of prejudice and deficient‑performance prongs)
State v. Gondor, 112 Ohio St.3d 377 (2006) (presumption that a licensed attorney is competent)
State v. Adams, 62 Ohio St.2d 151 (1980) (trial court authority to call witnesses)
State v. White, 15 Ohio St.2d 146 (1968) (presumption that a bench court considers only competent evidence)