State v. Cochran, 2020 Ohio 3054

Between Aug. 25–29, 2018, Dustin Cochran repeatedly assaulted his girlfriend M.S. in their trailer; two minor children were present during the abuse.
Cochran brandished a .22 handgun, threatened to shoot M.S., struck her with the gun, shoved it into her mouth, fired the weapon twice inside the trailer, and one bullet passed into the children’s bedroom.
Police/SWAT arrested Cochran after M.S. fled to her mother’s trailer and witnesses reported Cochran was armed with the children inside. DNA tied Cochran to the handgun; M.S. exhibited extensive bruising and other injuries.
A grand jury indicted Cochran on kidnapping, two counts of felonious assault (including a deadly-weapon specification), two counts of endangering children, domestic violence, and a forfeiture specification; attempted murder was later dismissed.
A jury convicted Cochran on all counts and firearm specifications; the court imposed an aggregate 36-year prison term. Cochran appealed raising three errors: (1) jury instruction on felonious assault, (2) exclusion of Children’s Services records/prior statements, and (3) admission of 39 photographs.

Issue	State's Argument	Cochran's Argument	Held
Whether the felonious-assault (deadly weapon) jury instruction misstated law or invited the jury to ignore the intent/attempt element	Instruction mirrored OJI and Green; pointing + threat can establish attempted harm	Instruction excused jury fact-finding; pointing/ threats alone insufficient because Cochran did not actually shoot M.S.	No plain error; instruction was a correct statement of law given testimony that Cochran pointed, threatened, struck with, and fired the gun (Green controls)
Whether the trial court erred by excluding Children’s Services records and disallowing cross-examination about alleged inconsistent CS statements	CS records are confidential; defense did not seek in camera inspection or follow statutory/process steps	Sought to impeach M.S. with alleged inconsistent statements to Children’s Services	No error; defendant failed to request in camera review or follow procedure, invited the issue, and the records were not shown to be material so exclusion was not reversible
Whether admitting 39 photographs of M.S.’s injuries was cumulative and unfairly prejudicial	Photos corroborated testimony, showed extent/character of injuries, and were probative of intent	Exhibits were duplicative and unduly prejudicial	No abuse of discretion; photographs were relevant, not substantially more prejudicial than probative, and supported intent/damage evidence

State v. Brooks, 44 Ohio St.3d 185 (Ohio 1989) (pointing a deadly weapon alone may be insufficient for felonious assault; totality of circumstances required)
State v. Green, 58 Ohio St.3d 239 (Ohio 1991) (pointing a deadly weapon coupled with a threat indicating intent can support felonious assault)
Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (prosecution must disclose evidence favorable to the accused when material to guilt or punishment)
Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (1995) (Brady disclosure duty extends to favorable evidence known to others acting on the prosecution’s behalf)
Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39 (1987) (criminal defendant entitled to in camera review of confidential child-services records to assess materiality)
State v. Geeslin, 116 Ohio St.3d 252 (Ohio 2007) (material evidence is that which goes to the substance of the allegations and could affect the outcome)
State v. Iacona, 93 Ohio St.3d 83 (Ohio 2001) ("reasonable probability" standard for materiality under Brady)
State v. Morales, 32 Ohio St.3d 252 (Ohio 1987) (photographs admissible unless prejudicial effect substantially outweighs probative value)