State v. Fannon
117 N.E.3d 10
Oh. Ct. App. 4th Dist. Athens2018Background
- Parents Kayla Fannon and Samuel Thompson were tried jointly and convicted by a jury of two counts of child endangering and one count of permitting child abuse based on severe injuries to their three‑month‑old infant A.T.; both were sentenced to prison.
- Medical testimony established multiple fractures of differing ages, a complex skull fracture, severe brain injury, and findings a child‑abuse pediatrician characterized as inflicted trauma causing permanent developmental impairments.
- Defendants fled during the fifth day of trial, were later captured and convicted of failure to appear; the court proceeded with trial in their absence.
- Key evidentiary matters included (a) other‑acts evidence concerning injuries to Fannon’s older child M.F., (b) PowerPoint slides used in opening (including a slide reading “Guilty”), (c) photographs of A.T. in the hospital, (d) human anatomy diagrams and (e) text messages recovered from a surrendered phone.
- Appellate challenges encompassed joinder/severance (Bruton/Confrontation concerns), prosecutorial misconduct (PowerPoint slide, voir dire remarks, photographs), admissibility of evidence, sufficiency of the evidence, ineffective assistance of counsel, cumulative error, merger of allied offenses, and extradition costs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Fannon / Thompson) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Joinder / Bruton confrontation | Joint trial permissible; statements were either non‑testimonial or not incriminating | Fannon: co‑defendant statements and Thompson’s apology letter violated confrontation and warranted severance | No plain error; statements either non‑incriminating or non‑testimonial; no Bruton violation and no severance required |
| Prosecutorial misconduct (PowerPoint/photo/voir dire) | Slide and statements were proper advocacy tied to evidence and permissible opening remarks | Defendants: slide reading “Guilty,” publishing hospital photo in opening, and denigrating defense counsel were inflammatory and prejudicial | No reversible misconduct; slide mirrored a request tied to evidence, photo was admitted later, voir dire remarks not denigrating; instructions cured any risk |
| Admission of other evidence (M.F. prior acts, skeleton diagrams, texts, hospital photos) | Evidence relevant to identity, absence of mistake, credibility; properly authenticated and limited | Defendants: other‑acts and certain exhibits were irrelevant, prejudicial, or lacked foundation | No abuse of discretion; 404(b) other‑acts admissible for identity/absence of mistake with limiting instruction; exhibits authenticated; no plain error |
| Sufficiency of evidence (abuse; duty of care) | Medical and circumstantial evidence proved abuse, serious physical harm, and violation of parental duty | Fannon/Thompson: medical opinions lacked required certainty; state failed to prove duty or abuse | Evidence sufficient; experts' testimony admissible under criminal‑case standard (possibility/probability); jurors decide weight; convictions affirmed |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel | N/A (state not arguing) | Fannon: counsel failed to seek severance, object, make adequate Crim.R.29 motion, or rehabilitate at closing | Claim fails: underlying issues lacked merit; counsel presumed competent; no reasonable probability of different outcome |
| Allied‑offenses merger (sentencing) | Distinct offenses involve different conduct, harm, and societal interests so multiple punishments proper | Thompson: offenses merge as same conduct or vague charging prevents Ruff analysis | Counts do not merge under Ruff; offenses protect different interests and involve separate acts/harms |
Key Cases Cited
- Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 (1968) (co‑defendant confession inadmissible when testimonial and implicates another defendant)
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) (Confrontation Clause limits admission of testimonial hearsay)
- State v. Pickens, 141 Ohio St.3d 462 (2014) (prosecutor may argue guilt based on evidence; limits on personal opinion)
- State v. Ruff, 143 Ohio St.3d 114 (2015) (framework for R.C. 2941.25 merger analysis: conduct, animus, import)
- State v. D'Ambrosio, 67 Ohio St.3d 185 (1993) (criminal‑case experts may testify in terms of possibility rather than scientific certainty)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (standard for sufficiency of the evidence review)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two‑prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)