State v. Dawson
2017 Ohio 2957
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Victim: RayVon, a 15‑month‑old, stayed with defendant Larry Dawson from Dec. 8–13, 2012; found unresponsive on Dec. 12 and died Dec. 13 from craniocebral blunt force trauma.
- Medical evidence (autopsy by Dr. Sterbenz and ICU pediatrician Dr. Malhotra): skull fracture(s), brain injury, and bilateral retinal hemorrhages; manner of death ruled homicide.
- Defendant was sole caregiver when injury likely occurred; he reported only a minor bump; girlfriend later said child fell down steps.
- Indictment: felony murder (R.C. 2903.02(B)) with predicate second‑degree child endangering (R.C. 2919.22(B)(1)(E)(2)(d)); convicted by jury and sentenced to 15 years to life.
- Defense presented experts (forensic pathologist and biomechanical engineer) who opined a fall down steps up to 48–72 hours earlier could account for the injuries; prosecution emphasized expert testimony that injuries were from recent, violent impacts and defendant’s demeanor/statements.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether using child endangering as predicate for felony murder violates due process | State: statutory scheme valid; felony murder requires proof of underlying felony mens rea | Dawson: allowing a recklessness‑based felony to predicate murder relieves prosecution of proving culpable mental state for murder | Court: rejected Dawson’s due process challenge; R.C. 2903.02(B) valid and mens rea for felony murder satisfied by mens rea of underlying felony |
| Sufficiency of evidence that Dawson abused victim and proximately caused death | State: autopsy and hospital testimony show abusive blunt‑force trauma causally linked to death; defendant alone with child when injury occurred | Dawson: evidence insufficient; fall down steps a plausible accidental cause; state relies on circumstantial inference | Court: evidence sufficient to submit felony murder to jury based on medical testimony and circumstantial evidence |
| Manifest weight — whether verdict was against weight of evidence | State: jury credited prosecution experts and other evidence (demeanor, statements) | Dawson: competing expert testimony supports reasonable doubt and favors accidental fall theory | Court: declined to overturn; jury reasonably resolved expert conflict for prosecution; no manifest miscarriage of justice |
| Cumulative error from several alleged harmless errors at trial | State: errors, if any, harmless and not prejudicial | Dawson: multiple harmless errors (rebuttal testimony referencing prior bruises, children services reference, juror contact) cumulatively deprived fair trial | Court: no reversible cumulative error; objections sustained or issues opened by defense testimony; jurors not prejudiced and defendant declined mistrial |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Lorraine, 66 Ohio St.3d 414 (Ohio 1993) (failure to raise an issue in the trial court waives all but plain error on appeal)
- State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (Ohio 1997) (distinction between sufficiency and manifest weight standards)
- State v. Goff, 82 Ohio St.3d 123 (Ohio 1998) (sufficiency review: evidence and inferences viewed in favor of prosecution)
- State v. Smith, 80 Ohio St.3d 89 (Ohio 1997) (legal standard for sufficiency review)
- State v. Adams, 62 Ohio St.2d 151 (Ohio 1980) (mens rea for child endangering characterized as recklessness)
- State v. Miller, 96 Ohio St.3d 384 (Ohio 2002) (deference to legislative definition of felony murder)
- State v. DeHass, 10 Ohio St.2d 230 (Ohio 1967) (role of jury in assessing witness credibility)
- State v. DeMarco, 31 Ohio St.3d 191 (Ohio 1987) (cumulative error requires showing multiple harmless errors combined to deprive fair trial)
- State v. Hill, 75 Ohio St.3d 195 (Ohio 1996) (Constitution does not guarantee a perfect trial; harmless error doctrine)