State v. Gibson
2021 Ohio 2150
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2021Background
- Paul H. Gibson was convicted by a jury on April 22, 2016 of rape of a nine‑year‑old (R.C. 2907.02), a first‑degree felony; sentenced May 24, 2016 to the mandatory term of 10 years to life, fined $5,000, Tier III sex offender classification.
- This court affirmed the conviction on direct appeal (2017), finding the victim credible and resolving minor testimonial inconsistencies in favor of the jury.
- Gibson filed postconviction relief and a motion for a new trial (March 13, 2019), later supplemented, claiming Judge Charles Pater was biased and made rulings prejudicial to him (e.g., juror excuse decisions, allowing testimony about drinking, limiting polygraph inquiry).
- The visiting judge who heard the petition reviewed the record and found no evidence of judicial bias; denied the joint petition and motion for new trial (Oct. 26, 2020).
- Gibson appealed, raising five assignments of error alleging Loc.R. violation (appointment of counsel), denial of right to present a complete defense, prosecutorial misconduct/fraud, and refusal to dismiss a juror for cause.
- The court rejected the claims on grounds of res judicata/scope limits and, on the merits, found no evidence of misconduct, bias, or prejudice sufficient to warrant relief; affirmed the denial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Gibson) | Defendant's Argument (State/Trial Court) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court violated Loc.R. 6.04 by appointing counsel favored by prosecution | Loc.R. 6.04 was violated when court appointed counsel requested by prosecution | Loc.R. 6.04 governs discovery and does not apply to appointment of counsel; claim lacks applicability | Rejected — Loc.R. 6.04 inapplicable and claim lacks merit |
| Whether Gibson was denied right to present a complete defense / ineffective assistance / prosecutorial misconduct | Court excluded evidence (polygraph inquiry); state filed false/misleading memos about defense expert; prosecutorial fraud deprived defense | Claims either were or could have been raised on direct appeal (res judicata); record shows opportunity to contest state filings; no evidence of fraudulent conduct or resulting prejudice | Rejected — res judicata or no evidentiary support and no prejudice shown |
| Whether Judge Pater was judicially biased, requiring new trial | Trial judge made multiple rulings influenced by personal bias against Gibson | Visiting judge reviewed full record and found no rulings evidencing judicial bias; record supports fair proceedings | Rejected — no evidence of judicial bias; fair trial affirmed |
| Whether refusal to dismiss a juror for cause created a biased, prejudicial jury | Trial court refused to remove a potentially biased juror, leaving defense to expend a peremptory to remove him | Record does not show counsel sought removal for cause; juror stated ability to be fair; composition did not prejudice Gibson (jury acquitted on 3 of 4 counts) | Rejected — no cause challenge preserved or proven, no demonstrated prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Hastings, 461 U.S. 499 (ensuring defendants receive fair, not perfect, trials)
- State v. Lott, 51 Ohio St.3d 160 (appellate review aims to ensure fair trials rather than perfection)