State v. Griffith, 2012 Ohio 2628

Griffith appeals his felonious assault conviction from a backing-vehicle incident where the victim was behind the truck and not struck.
The state charged Griffith under R.C. 2903.11(A)(2) alleging knowingly causing physical harm by means of a deadly weapon—the truck.
The evidence shows Griffith engaged with the victim at a post office parking lot, called her a racial slur, and backed the truck with the victim behind it, causing her to jump out to avoid harm.
Griffith admitted to an altercation but denied leaving a paint mark; he told police he looked up, saw the victim, and accelerated to leave.
The defense argued insufficiency of the knowledge element, manifest weight issues, and several ineffective-assistance grounds, including suppression of statements and voir dire/strategy questions; the trial court and court of appeals affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the evidence proves Griffith acted knowingly	Griffith: insufficient to prove knowledge	Griffith: acted recklessly, not knowingly	Sufficient evidence supports knowledge
Whether the verdict was against the manifest weight of the evidence	State: evidence supports conviction beyond reasonable doubt	Griffith: weight of evidence weighs against verdict	Appeal of weight rejected; no separate weight ground established
Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to seek suppression of statements	State: statements admissible; suppression not warranted	Griffith: custodial interrogation; Miranda rights violated	No prejudice; no custodial interrogation evident; suppression not warranted
Whether counsel was ineffective for voir dire/defendant’s decision not to testify and failure to call a witness	Defense arguments on voir dire and witnesses	Counsel followed Griffith’s decisions; voir dire strategy permissible; witness would not have significantly aided defense	No ineffective-assistance shown; decisions were strategic and supported by record

State v. Yarbrough, 95 Ohio St.3d 227 (2002) (sufficiency standard for criminal proof; Jackson v. Virginia standard applied)
Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (sufficiency of evidence standard (reasonable doubt))
State v. Lozier, 101 Ohio St.3d 161 (2004) (mental state generally proven by surrounding facts; knowledge doctrine)
State v. Clark, 101 Ohio App.3d 389 (8th Dist.1995) (circumstantial evidence used to prove mental state)
State v. Caldwell, 79 Ohio App.3d 667 (4th Dist.1992) (presumption of intent from natural and probable consequences)
State v. Tate, 8th Dist. No. 87008 (2006) (recognizes truck as a deadly weapon in certain contexts)
Yarborough v. Alvarado, 541 U.S. 652 (2004) (custody analysis factors for Miranda applicability)
State v. Petriashvili, 2009-Ohio-6466 (8th Dist.) (non-custodial home interview not custodial nonetheless)
State v. Hopfer, 112 Ohio App.3d 521 (1996) (home interviews less likely custodial)
Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975) (right to represent oneself; counsel must respect client decisions)
State v. Cowans, 87 Ohio St.3d 68 (1999) ( Sixth Amendment; counsel’s duty to client)
Coleman v. Mitchell, 268 F.3d 417 (6th Cir.2001) (counsel not ineffective for following client’s decisions)
State v. Linville, 2005-Ohio-3150 (10th Dist.) (voir dire considerations regarding testifying defendant)