State v. Dye
2016 Ohio 986
Ohio Ct. App.2016Background
- Defendant Michael L. Dye was indicted on March 25, 2015 for Gross Sexual Imposition (R.C. 2907.05(A)(4), third-degree felony) and Importuning (R.C. 2907.07(A), third-degree felony) based on allegations by an 11-year-old victim, K.H., of an incident on March 14, 2015.
- At trial the State presented K.H.’s testimony describing manual touching of her genitals and breasts and an attempted sexual act; Dye was acquitted of Importuning but convicted of Gross Sexual Imposition after a jury trial.
- Dye gave a recorded police interview and a written statement in which he admitted straddling K.H. to give a massage and later stated his hand may have "slipped" between her legs; he denied asking K.H. to touch him and denied digital penetration.
- At sentencing the trial court imposed 42 months in prison; Dye appealed claiming ineffective assistance of trial counsel under the Sixth Amendment.
- Dye’s ineffective assistance claims alleged failures to object to leading questions, failure to present/exploit exculpatory or impeachment evidence, failure to object to hearsay in a detective’s testimony, and inadequate cross-examination of the detective.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Dye) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Dye received ineffective assistance for failure to object to leading questions on direct of the child-victim | Prosecutor’s questioning was largely non-leading and counsel’s choices were reasonable; objections may be trial strategy | Counsel failed to object to numerous leading questions, prejudicing Dye | Court: No ineffective assistance; many questions were non-leading or within trial court discretion; strategy to avoid objecting to child’s testimony reasonable |
| Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to present unspecified exculpatory evidence or impeach K.H. with prior inconsistent statements | No specific omitted evidence identified; record shows counsel pursued available avenues | Counsel failed to present exculpatory evidence and use prior inconsistent statements to impeach K.H. | Court: Argument unsupported and speculative; no record citations; not well-taken |
| Whether counsel erred by not objecting to hearsay in Detective Marquis’s testimony summarizing K.H.’s statements | Detective’s narration, though hearsay, was cumulative and sometimes highlighted inconsistencies favorable to defense; objections were made to parts | Counsel failed to object to hearsay narration of K.H.’s interview, prejudicing Dye | Court: No prejudice shown; some objections were made; strategic decision plausible; not ineffective assistance |
| Whether counsel’s brief cross-examination of the detective was deficient | Targeted cross-examination can be strategic; breadth of direct does not require matching scope on cross | Counsel’s cross was too short and failed to exploit weaknesses in detective’s testimony | Court: No showing that limited cross was unreasonable or prejudicial; not ineffective assistance |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Bradley, 42 Ohio St.3d 136 (Ohio 1989) (adopts Strickland two-part ineffective assistance test)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (standard for ineffective assistance of counsel: deficient performance and prejudice)
- State v. Jackson, 92 Ohio St.3d 436 (Ohio 2001) (trial court discretion to allow leading questions on direct)