State v. Galloway
2016 Ohio 7767
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Defendant Brandon Galloway was tried in Delaware Municipal Court after a complaint that he assaulted his father, H.G., on August 12, 2015; jury convicted him of domestic violence, assault, aggravated menacing, and disorderly conduct.
- Trial evidence: H.G. testified Galloway grabbed him, broke his glasses, threatened to kill him, brandished a knife and later a gun; H.G.’s wife (also Galloway’s mother) heard yelling and called 911.
- Two deputies testified consistent with H.G.: they observed a messy bedroom, blood on sheets, a large knife and a shotgun; deputies reported statements from Galloway claiming he acted in self-defense.
- Defense sought to cross-examine H.G. and his wife about H.G.’s prior violent acts (including a recent domestic-violence complaint) to show victim’s violent propensity and support a self-defense theory.
- Trial court barred cross-examination about H.G.’s violent history and any extrinsic evidence of specific prior acts (unless Galloway testified); Galloway did not testify.
- On appeal Galloway argued the exclusion violated his Sixth Amendment rights and was reversible error; the appellate court affirmed, finding exclusion proper and any error harmless.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of specific prior acts of victim to show victim was initial aggressor | State: Evid.R. 405/Barnes prohibit proving initial aggressor by specific instances; victim character not essential to self-defense | Galloway: prior acts show victim’s violent propensity and tend to prove he was not aggressor and support self-defense | Court: Exclusion proper under Barnes/Hale; specific instances not admissible to prove initial aggressor |
| Use of victim’s prior acts to show defendant’s state of mind | State: character evidence not necessary; defendant didn’t testify so state-of-mind exception inapplicable | Galloway: evidence would show he reasonably believed deadly/non-deadly force necessary | Held: Court rejects — state-of-mind exception applies to defendant’s testimony, not other witnesses; Galloway forfeited this theory at trial and plain-error review fails |
| Method of eliciting specific-instance evidence via cross-examination | State: Evid.R. 405 allows specific-instance inquiry only when witness is a character witness on direct | Galloway: cross could open door to inquire into specific incidents | Held: Court enforces Hale — H.G. and his wife were not character witnesses on direct, so specific-instance cross-examination was not permitted |
| Harmless error / impact on verdict | State: Even excluding the evidence, record (victim, deputies, photos, 911 audio) supports verdict beyond reasonable doubt | Galloway: exclusion affected his substantial rights and verdict | Held: Any error was harmless; appellant offered no testimony proving self-defense and evidence against him was substantial |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Barnes, 759 N.E.2d 1240 (Ohio 2001) (specific instances of victim’s conduct are not admissible to prove the victim was the initial aggressor)
- State v. Hale, 892 N.E.2d 864 (Ohio 2008) (reaffirms Barnes; Evid.R.405 limits specific-instance evidence to cross of a character witness or where character is essential element)
- State v. Sage, 510 N.E.2d 343 (Ohio 1987) (trial court has discretion over admission of evidence)
- State v. Long, 372 N.E.2d 804 (Ohio 1978) (plain-error standard; remedy exercised cautiously)