State v. Foster, 2014 Ohio 530

Danielle Foster was charged after an August 10, 2012 incident at the Montgomery County Job Center: resisting arrest, obstructing official business, domestic violence, assault, endangering children, and two counts of disorderly conduct.
Deputies testified they heard loud yelling in a restroom, observed Foster hold and later strike her 3-year-old son in a parking lot, and that Foster shouted profanities, refused instructions, and resisted when officers attempted to take her from her vehicle.
Foster denied striking the child, disputed aspects of the officers’ version (saying they yanked her out and tried to take her keys), and testified she was pregnant and upset, but otherwise participated and answered questions at trial.
The municipal court credited the officers’ testimony, acquitted Foster of obstructing official business and child endangerment, and convicted her of domestic violence, assault, resisting arrest, and two disorderly conduct counts.
On appeal Foster argued trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate/introduce mitigation (social/medical history), failing to request a competency hearing, and failing to pursue a not-guilty-by-reason-of-insanity defense.
The Second District affirmed, concluding Foster failed to show deficient performance or prejudice under Strickland: counsel’s choices were reasonable strategic decisions and the record contained no indicia of incompetency or severe mental disease warranting an insanity defense.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether counsel was ineffective for not investigating social/medical mitigation	Counsel’s investigation was reasonable; no record showing failure	Counsel failed to investigate mitigating social/medical issues that might explain behavior	No—record contains no evidence counsel failed to reasonably investigate; presumption of reasonable assistance not overcome
Whether counsel was ineffective for not presenting mitigating evidence	Strategic choice to avoid evidence that would contradict denial of wrongdoing	Counsel should have presented social/medical mitigation to explain conduct	No—presentation of mitigation would have conflicted with defense strategy; trial-strategy decisions are protected
Whether counsel should have requested a competency hearing	Competency presumed absent indicia of incompetence; defendant testified coherently	Counsel should have requested hearing given defendant’s denials and emotional state	No—record showed no indicia of incompetency; defendant understood proceedings and assisted in defense
Whether counsel was ineffective for not pursuing insanity defense	Insanity requires severe mental disease causing inability to know wrongfulness; no record support	Counsel should have pursued not-guilty-by-reason-of-insanity as explanatory/mitigating defense	No—no evidence of severe mental disease; insanity defense would conflict with not-guilty strategy; reasonable to forgo it

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes two-prong ineffective assistance standard)
State v. Bradley, 42 Ohio St.3d 136 (Ohio adoption of Strickland framework)
Michel v. Louisiana, 350 U.S. 91 (presumption that counsel's conduct falls within wide range of reasonable professional assistance)
State v. Hand, 107 Ohio St.3d 378 (decision to forgo presenting mitigating evidence is trial strategy)
State v. Keith, 79 Ohio St.3d 514 (mitigating evidence strategy principle)
State v. Carter, 89 Ohio St.3d 593 (competency presumption principles)
State v. Thomas, 97 Ohio St.3d 309 (failure to request competency hearing not deficient absent indicia of incompetence)
State v. Mason, 82 Ohio St.3d 144 (courts will not second-guess strategic trial decisions)
State v. Decker, 28 Ohio St.3d 137 (failure to pursue insanity defense not per se ineffective)
State v. Sneed, 63 Ohio St.3d 3 (insanity-defense principles)
State v. Wong, 95 Ohio App.3d 39 (insanity-defense guidance at appellate level)
State v. Frazier, 61 Ohio St.3d 247 (unsuccessful strategy does not itself show ineffective assistance)