State v. Charlton, 2014 Ohio 1330

Charlton was indicted for rape in Lorain County; he proceeded pro se with an attorney advisor; trial proceeded to a jury which initially deadlocked then returned a guilty verdict and the court sentenced him to eight years.
The court advised Charlton of the standard pro se burdens while ensuring he remained bound by the same rules as represented parties.
The state presented L.A.’s testimony and corroborating statements from her adult children; the jury heard detailed defense cross-examination aimed at impeaching L.A.’s account.
Charlton argued the evidence was legally insufficient and the weight of the evidence favored acquittal; the trial court denied Crim.R. 29 motions and the verdict was entered.
Two judges concluded the weight of the evidence did not support the conviction; however, the panel as a whole affirmed the conviction due to lack of unanimity on the weight reversal.
The court ultimately sustained Charlton’s manifest-weight claim to the extent argued, but the judgment was affirmed because the panel was not unanimous on that issue.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency and weight of the evidence	Charlton argues the evidence is insufficient and the verdict weighs against the evidence.	Charlton asserts the state failed to prove rape beyond a reasonable doubt and that the weight favors acquittal.	Weight claim sustained to the extent argued; conviction affirmed due to non-unanimous panel on weight.
Ineffective assistance of counsel	Charlton contends counsel failed to disclose witnesses/evidence and erred in closing.	State argues no deficient performance or prejudice shown; trial strategy may justify conduct.	No reversible error; defense failure to establish Strickland prejudice.
Right to compulsory process / witness testimony	Charlton claims denial of witnesses/evidence violated his rights.	Court properly managed discovery and sanctions; no denial of defense rights.	No error; trial court did not impermissibly sanction or deny defense.
Brady / discriminatory prosecution / closing arguments	Charlton asserts Brady violations, discriminatory prosecution, and mischaracterization in closing.	State argues Brady not shown; no prima facie selective prosecution; closing remarks not reversible error for forfeiture.	Assigned issues overruled; no plain-error finding.
Howard charge / jury instruction- coercion risk	Charlton argues the Howard charge was improper; sought mistrial.	Howard charge approved; no requirement to declare mistrial on first deadlock indication.	Howard charge affirmed; no reversible error.

State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (1997) (sufficiency standard; de novo review of evidence)
State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (1991) (jurisdictional syllabus on sufficiency)
State v. Apanovitch, 33 Ohio St.3d 19 (1987) (weight-of-the-evidence factors)
State v. Otten, 33 Ohio App.3d 339 (1986) (thirteenth juror concept in weight review)
State v. Howard, 42 Ohio St.3d 18 (1989) (Howard charge as proper supplemental instruction)