State v. Copeland
2025 Ohio 2204
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2025Background
- Chardrick R. Copeland was charged with three counts of gross sexual imposition (GSI) involving minors under 13, and one count of rape of a minor under 13, relating to three different victims.
- Two GSI counts related to J.H.; one GSI count related to B.J.; the rape charge related to A.B.
- Copeland waived a jury, and proceeded to a bench trial.
- He was found guilty of both GSI charges involving J.H. and the rape charge involving A.B., but not guilty on the GSI charge related to B.J.
- Copeland was sentenced to concurrent 36-month terms for GSI (J.H.), to run consecutively to a mandatory 25 years-to-life for rape (A.B.).
- On appeal, Copeland challenged the outcome, primarily alleging ineffective assistance of counsel and a Confrontation Clause (Sixth Amendment) violation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ineffective assistance for not severing counts | Joinder was proper; court can separately consider each count | Counts should have been severed; risk of prejudice from evidence unrelated to specific counts | No prejudice shown; court considered each count separately; first prong of Strickland test not met |
| Ineffective assistance re: improper vouching/expert testimony | Experts did not improperly vouch; court could appropriately weigh testimony | Counsel was ineffective for not objecting to expert vouching/unqualified expert testimony | No prejudice as to outcome; evidence was weighed by the judge, not a jury |
| Ineffective assistance: expert not qualified re: memory | Not required unless testimony related to memory processes | Expert was not qualified to opine on memory, and objecting could have changed outcome | No reasonable probability outcome would differ; no prejudice |
| Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause violation | No violation where victim testified and was subject to cross-examination | Playing forensic interview video post-testimony violated confrontation rights | No violation; declarant available and subject to cross-exam; consistent with precedent |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (establishes two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- State v. Bradley, 42 Ohio St.3d 136 (1989) (applies Strickland in Ohio)
- State v. Perez, 2009-Ohio-6179 (admission of prior testimonial statements; no confrontation violation if witness testifies)
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) (defines Confrontation Clause guarantees)
- State v. Post, 32 Ohio St.3d 380 (1987) (presumption that judges in bench trials consider only admissible evidence)