State v. Crytzer
2019 Ohio 2285
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- Victim Danyelle Mullins returned home after an evening out with a friend; Kyle Crytzer (her ex) arrived, argued, was pushed out, threatened to "light the house on fire," and a porch fire shortly followed. Investigators found deck stain on the deck, a neighbor’s ladder to a second-story window, and stain on Crytzer’s jeans; he had a lighter.
- Crytzer was indicted on two counts of aggravated arson, breaking and entering, attempted burglary, and misdemeanor domestic violence. A first jury acquitted on some counts and deadlocked on others; a second jury convicted on two aggravated arson counts (one merged) and domestic violence.
- Defense sought to play a recorded interview between fire investigator Captain Chase and Mullins to impeach her trial testimony as allegedly inconsistent (regarding intoxication). The trial court reviewed the recording and excluded it as not materially inconsistent; defense proffered the recording.
- Before deliberations the trial judge asked jurors if they could stay past 4:30 p.m. to finish that day and said the plan was to "wrap this thing up today so that you don’t have to come back tomorrow." No juror objected; the jury deliberated and returned a guilty verdict that evening.
- Crytzer appealed, raising: (1) trial court abused discretion by excluding the recorded interview, (2) ineffective assistance for defense counsel’s conduct regarding that recording, (3) trial court pressured jury to decide quickly, and (4) ineffective assistance for counsel’s failure to object to the court’s statements. The appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Crytzer) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of prior recorded statement under Evid.R. 613 | Recorded interview not inconsistent; exclusion proper | Recording showed Mullins was "very intoxicated" and contradicted her courtroom testimony; should be admitted to impeach | Court: No material inconsistency; exclusion not an abuse of discretion |
| Whether omission in prior statement equals inconsistency | State: omissions are not inconsistent statements | Crytzer: omission of intoxication admissions shows inconsistency | Court: Omissions not inconsistent here; testimony and interview aligned regarding intoxication |
| Jury-coercion by judge urging verdict that day | State: judge’s inquiries were logistical and accompanied by proper cautionary instructions | Crytzer: judge pressured jurors to reach a verdict quickly, risking coercion | Court: Comments were not coercive given repeated instructions to deliberate fully; no plain error shown |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel for not playing recording or objecting to judge | State: underlying rulings had merit, so no prejudice from counsel’s choices | Crytzer: counsel erred in failing to secure admission and in failing to object to jury-comments | Held: Counsel not ineffective because underlying evidentiary ruling and jury-comment claims lacked merit; no reasonable probability of different outcome |
Key Cases Cited
- Hymore v. State, 9 Ohio St.2d 122 (1967) (trial court has broad discretion on admissibility of evidence)
- Ferranto v. Ohio, 112 Ohio St. (1925) (definition of abuse of discretion in trial court rulings)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Henderson v. State, 39 Ohio St.3d 24 (1988) (no need to revisit counsel-performance when underlying claim lacks merit)
- Wade v. State, 53 Ohio St.2d 182 (1978) (judge’s remarks may prejudice defendant; standards for evaluating judicial comments)
- Thomas v. State, 36 Ohio St.2d 68 (1973) (jurors give great deference to trial judge; judge must recognize effect of comments)