State v. Grether
2019 Ohio 4243
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- Victim (V.A.) was 12 when defendant Brandon Grether, her mother’s longtime partner and father-figure, digitally penetrated her on July 4, 2016. DNA consistent with Grether was found on V.A.’s underwear.
- V.A. disclosed the assault to her mother the same day; Grether admitted being drunk and later apologized in writing.
- Police and CARE-center interviews and a medical exam occurred; V.A. testified at trial that she felt and was hurt by penetration.
- At trial defense counsel played a portion of a prior police interview (not admitted into evidence); counsel later moved for a mistrial, alleging an inadvertent playing of audio referencing Grether’s prior conviction.
- The court instructed the jury using language from this court’s precedents (Melendez and Nieves) defining sexual conduct; the jury convicted Grether of rape and gross sexual imposition and he was sentenced to life with parole eligibility after ten years.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Grether) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Ineffective assistance of counsel | Counsel’s performance was reasonable; no reversible error. | Counsel was ineffective for (a) playing audio mentioning prior conviction and (b) cross-examining under a mistaken view of sexual-conduct law. | No ineffective assistance: appellant failed Strickland showing of prejudice; evidence of guilt was strong. |
| 2. Denial of mistrial after audio played | Denial proper; invited-error doctrine and no shown prejudice. | Mistrial required because jury heard inadmissible prior-conviction reference. | Denial affirmed: unclear jury heard it, invited-error doctrine applies, and no prejudice shown given evidence. |
| 3. Jury instruction on "sexual conduct" definition | Instruction consistent with Ninth District precedent (Melendez/Nieves) and correct under statute. | Instruction was erroneous because post-2006 statutory language limits "sexual conduct" to vaginal/anal opening (argues Melendez/Nieves misapplied). | Instruction upheld: court declines to revisit its precedent; Melendez/Nieves were applied correctly. |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes ineffective-assistance two-prong test)
- State v. Reynolds, 80 Ohio St.3d 670 (applies Strickland in Ohio criminal context)
- State v. Keith, 79 Ohio St.3d 514 (discusses prejudice and performance standards under Strickland)