State v. Gates, 2011 Ohio 5631

Gates was cited for obstructing official business in violation of R.C. 2921.31, a misdemeanor, and went to trial by jury where he was convicted.
He challenged the verdict on multiple assignments of error on appeal from Barberton Municipal Court.
The court reordered some assignments for review and affirmed the judgment against Gates.
Key contested issues included voir dire for-cause challenges, a Crim.R. 29 motion, hearsay and other-acts evidence, and a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.
The record shows Officer Russell towed a vehicle due to suspended licenses and a resident complaint, and Gates interfered with the towing process.
The appellate court held remaining evidence supported guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and that the challenged evidentiary rulings were either correct or harmless.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Voir dire challenges for cause	Gates sought to remove jurors for cause; side-bar discussion was not recorded.	Incomplete record, stipulation exists, record should be reviewed; failure to record taints the process.	Record incomplete; appellate presumption of regularity; judgment affirmed.
Sufficiency of the evidence to convict	Evidence insufficient to prove abandonment and obstruction.	Officer authorized tow for suspended licenses and driveway obstruction; not required to prove abandonment.	Sufficient evidence supported obstructing official business beyond a reasonable doubt.
Hearsay testimony by Officer Russell	Resident's complaint about the vehicle was hearsay and should have been excluded.	Statement was not offered to prove truth but to show impact on officer's action; not hearsay.	Not hearsay; admissible as to effect on officer’s actions.
Admission of prior bad acts evidence	Officer heard Gates’ prior acts would prejudice the jury.	Evidence was admissible for context and to show knowledge; not unduly prejudicial.	No abuse of discretion; even if error, any prejudice was harmless.
Ineffective assistance of counsel regarding nine-page document	Counsel should have objected to introducing Gates’ criminal history document.	Document was not admitted as exhibit; no prejudice from its mention; strategy was reasonable.	No ineffective assistance; no prejudice established.

State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (1991) (sufficiency review standard)
State v. Diar, 120 Ohio St.3d 460 (2008) (evidentiary discretion on 404(B) acts)
State v. Conway, 109 Ohio St.3d 412 (2006) (admissibility of prior acts; abuse of discretion standard)
State v. Galloway, 9th Dist. No. 19752 (2001) (sufficiency review standard)
State v. Williams, 6 Ohio St.3d 281 (1983) (harmless-error rule in criminal trials)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (ineffective assistance standard; prejudice prong)
Bradley v. State, 42 Ohio St.3d 136 (1989) (prejudice required for ineffective assistance claims)