State v. Cenexant, 2023 Ohio 3388

On Feb. 20, 2022, Jona Cenexant allegedly struck her husband, Roland Mercilien; she was charged with domestic violence and assault. A jury trial was held Feb. 15, 2023.
Mercilien (primary language Haitian Creole) testified through an interpreter; video and photos of his injuries were introduced. The interpreter was sworn but the trial court did not conduct an on-the-record voir dire of qualifications.
During deliberations the jury twice reported being deadlocked. The court first read the Howard (Allen-style) supplemental instruction verbatim, then later gave a shortened follow-up reminding jurors of circumstantial-evidence law and asking them to attempt one final verdict. Defense moved for mistrial after the second deadlock; the motion was denied.
The jury convicted on both counts; the court merged counts, proceeded on domestic violence, suspended jail time, imposed a $500 fine and two years probation. Cenexant appealed.
On appeal she raised (1) that the court failed to properly voir dire or determine the interpreter’s qualifications, and (2) that the repeated Howard instruction and the second circumstantial-evidence reminder were coercive.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Cenexant)	Held
Trial court failed to voir dire and determine interpreter qualifications	Waived at trial; no contemporaneous objection; no showing interpreter error affected outcome	Court didn’t verify certification/credentials or conduct voir dire as required by rule; record silent on qualifications	Waived all but plain error; no plain error shown — no alleged mistranslation, both parties spoke Haitian Creole, and defendant did not show outcome would differ
Supplemental Howard (Allen) instruction and later circumstantial-evidence reminder were coercive	Trial judge reasonably encouraged one last effort; first charge was verbatim Howard; counsel sought mistrial but did not object to the instruction text; no plain error	Second, shorter instruction (plus circumstantial instruction) unduly coerced jurors and skewed deliberations toward conviction	Not coercive or plainly erroneous. First instruction followed Howard; second was a limited last-effort reminder and circumstantial-evidence restatement; court cautioned unanimity and allowed for mistrial if no progress

State v. Howard, 42 Ohio St.3d 18 (1989) (Ohio Supreme Court approved a revised, neutral supplemental jury instruction to replace the coercive aspects of the Allen charge)
State v. Pina, 361 N.E.2d 262 (Ohio App. 1975) (failure to provide effective interpretation raises constitutional concerns including due process and confrontation)
State v. Bravo, 81 N.E.3d 919 (2017) (discusses interpreter qualifications, the Code of Professional Conduct, and the court’s duty to assess interpreter proficiency)
State v. Rivera, 650 N.E.2d 906 (1995) (failure to raise interpreter/performance issues at trial waives the claim on appeal)
State v. Rosa, 547 N.E.2d 1232 (1989) (objection to lack of qualifying an interpreter as an expert cannot be raised for first time on appeal)
State v. Barnes, 759 N.E.2d 1240 (2001) (plain-error standard requires showing error affected substantial rights/outcome)
State v. Obermiller, 63 N.E.3d 93 (2016) (restates plain-error test in criminal appeals)
State v. Long, 372 N.E.2d 804 (1978) (Crim.R. 52(B) plain-error relief is to be applied cautiously)
State v. Clifton, 872 N.E.2d 1310 (2007) (when courts deviate from Howard language, they must ensure the instruction preserves neutrality and invites reevaluation by all jurors)