State v. Davison
2021 Ohio 4184
Ohio Ct. App.2021Background
- Victim Erica Vaughn was assaulted at her apartment after leaving a memorial party; she identified appellant Tajie J. Bounds Davison as her attacker, suffered visible injuries, and reported missing phone and keys.
- Bounds Davison was indicted for aggravated burglary (R.C. 2911.11(A)(1)), robbery (R.C. 2911.02(A)(2)), and disrupting public services (R.C. 2909.04(A)(1)).
- At trial Davison did not deny the assault occurred but disputed that he was the perpetrator; defense presented two witnesses (his cousin Diamond Bounds and Mariah Nusbaum) and two videos said to show him at the party around the alleged time.
- Nusbaum testified she forwarded videos but could not verify their date/time; she admitted Snapchat filters can add or change displayed date/time; defense-used videos had no independent authentication.
- Prosecutor demonstrated on the record, using his phone, how Snapchat can superimpose date/time; the state also played a recorded jail call suggesting Nusbaum might lie for Davison.
- The jury found Davison guilty on all counts; on appeal he raised (1) error in admitting the prosecutor’s demonstrative Snapchat timestamp demo, (2) ineffective assistance for failure to object, and (3) that convictions were against the manifest weight of the evidence. The court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of prosecutor's demonstrative photo showing Snapchat date/time | State: demonstration illustrated how Snapchat can add/alter timestamps and was relevant to witness admissions | Davison: prosecutor presented demonstrative evidence altering timestamps without supporting testimony; plain error | No plain error; demonstrative use was supported by Nusbaum’s admission that Snapchat can insert dates/times; trial court did not abuse discretion admitting exhibit |
| Ineffective assistance for counsel's failure to object to the demonstrative photo | State: not applicable (respondent) | Davison: counsel’s failure to object fell below reasonable standard and prejudiced outcome | Overruled. No deficient performance shown or prejudice established; decision to forgo objection was a reasonable trial strategy |
| Manifest weight of the evidence for convictions | State: testimony, victim ID, injuries, missing items, and credibility issues for defense witnesses support convictions | Davison: alibi evidence (witnesses and videos) undermines ID; witnesses untrustworthy | Affirmed. Credibility and conflicts were for jury; this is not the exceptional case where verdict is against manifest weight |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective-assistance two-prong standard)
- United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (plain-error framework under federal rule)
- State v. Long, 53 Ohio St.2d 91 (appellate courts should notice plain error only with utmost caution)
- State v. Hill, 92 Ohio St.3d 191 (discussion of plain error requirements)
- State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (manifest-weight-of-the-evidence standard)
- State v. DeHass, 10 Ohio St.2d 230 (deference to jury on witness credibility)
- State v. Conway, 109 Ohio St.3d 412 (abuse-of-discretion standard for evidentiary rulings)