State v. Carter
2017 Ohio 5573
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Defendant Alton Carter was indicted on charges including rape, attempted rape, felonious assault (reduced to misdemeanor assault), kidnapping, and related specifications; tried by jury in May 2016 and convicted of misdemeanor assault and kidnapping; sentenced to six years for kidnapping (concurrent six months for assault) and classified as a Tier II sex offender.
- Incident stemmed from an altercation after a bar visit; victim G.R. said Carter followed her to her apartment garage, choked her, digitally penetrated her, and attempted anal rape; she used mace twice. Neighbor observed part of a struggle; police and a SANE exam followed.
- Forensic testing: semen found on victim’s underwear; vaginal and buttock swabs negative for male DNA; touch DNA on the victim’s neck matched Carter (expert testified amount suggested more than casual contact).
- Carter made statements to police at the scene and later was interviewed in custody; portions of those interviews were played at trial. Trial court denied various defense motions (some pro se motions were not considered).
- Defense raised on appeal multiple claims: Miranda/suppression of statements, failure to give lesser-included (abduction) instruction, expert DNA testimony admissibility, Confrontation Clause and SANE questioning limits, alleged hearsay from investigating detective, ineffective assistance, and challenges to sufficiency and manifest weight of kidnapping conviction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of statements made at scene (Miranda) | State: on-the-scene investigative questioning, not custodial, so Miranda warnings not required. | Carter: statements elicited while detained should have been suppressed for lack of Miranda warnings. | Court: No merit; questioning was investigative (not custodial); issue waived for failure to raise timely but substantively rejected. |
| Failure to instruct on lesser-included offense (abduction) | State: kidnapping conviction proper; jury found sexual-motivation element. | Carter: trial court should have instructed abduction (no sexual-motivation element); plain error. | Court: No plain error; jury convicted on kidnapping with sexual motivation; abduction instruction would not likely change outcome. |
| Admissibility/weight of touch DNA expert testimony | State: expert testimony met Evid.R. 702 and was relevant to choking/assault. | Carter: scientist’s remark about DNA amount being more consistent with prolonged contact was speculative and prejudicial. | Court: Admissible; challenges go to weight not admissibility; no plain error. |
| Limitation on cross-examining SANE via victim’s medical records (Confrontation) | State: restricted questioning where SANE could not authenticate or read portions she didn’t create. | Carter: exclusion interfered with right to confront and impeach victim. | Court: Error waived for lack of proffer; no reversible error. |
| Detective’s testimony (opinions and hearsay about barmaid) | State: testimony explained investigative steps; admissible for non-hearsay purpose. | Carter: detective improperly vouched, offered opinion on credibility, and relayed hearsay (barmaid) in violation of Confrontation Clause. | Court: Limited opinion remarks were curtailed by the court and harmless; brief hearsay reference was ambiguous and harmless. |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel (failure to move/suppress/seek instruction/use impeachment) | State: counsel’s acts/omissions were trial strategy or harmless; no prejudice under Strickland. | Carter: multiple failures amount to deficient performance and prejudice. | Court: No Strickland violation; choices were strategic or harmless; cumulative-error doctrine inapplicable. |
| Sufficiency and manifest weight of evidence for kidnapping and sex-offender classification | State: victim’s testimony and DNA/touch evidence support sexual-motivation restraint. | Carter: acquittals on rape counts undermine sexual-motivation element; testimony inconsistent. | Court: Evidence sufficient; jury credibility determinations not overcome on manifest-weight review; convictions affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Xenia v. Wallace, 37 Ohio St.3d 216, 524 N.E.2d 889 (waiver of unraised suppression issues)
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (custodial interrogation and warnings rule)
- State v. Nemeth, 82 Ohio St.3d 202, 694 N.E.2d 1332 (favor admissibility of expert testimony under Evid.R. 702)
- State v. Thompson, 141 Ohio St.3d 254, 23 N.E.3d 1096 (expert testimony may be in terms of possibility; weight not admissibility)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 678 N.E.2d 541 (manifest-weight standard)
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (Confrontation Clause limits on testimonial out-of-court statements)
- State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259, 574 N.E.2d 492 (standard for sufficiency review)