State v. Groves, 2014 Ohio 4337

Patricia L. Groves was convicted by a jury in Wood County Court of Common Pleas of aggravated arson (first-degree felony) and insurance fraud (fifth-degree felony) for an intentionally set fire at her cleaning business.
Trial court sentenced Groves to 36 months for aggravated arson (plus 5 years mandatory post-release control) and 11 months for insurance fraud (plus 3 years discretionary post-release control), ordered to run consecutively, and imposed $2,035.65 restitution.
Groves appealed raising four assignments of error: (1) admission of hearsay statements at trial; (2) unfair prejudice from the prosecutor leaving a photo displayed; (3) ineffective assistance of counsel; and (4) sentencing court’s failure to make required findings before imposing consecutive sentences under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4).
The court of appeals reviewed evidentiary objections and Strickland ineffective assistance claims and found no reversible error on the first three assignments.
The court concluded the trial court did not make the statutory findings required by R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)(a)-(c) before imposing consecutive sentences, rendering the sentencing contrary to law and requiring remand for resentencing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Groves)	Held
Admissibility of four out-of-court statements	Statements were admissible as non-assertive (questions) or offered to explain witness conduct	Statements were hearsay and should have been excluded	Court: admissible (questions or non-hearsay purpose)
Display of photograph on projector	Any delay in display was not prejudicial; intent of photo was explanatory	Delay prejudiced jury against Groves	Court: no unfair prejudice; no error
Ineffective assistance of counsel	Counsel’s choices were trial strategy; any elicited damaging testimony was tactical	Counsel failed to object to incarceration reference, hearsay, and failed to cross-examine witnesses	Court: counsel’s performance not shown deficient or prejudicial under Strickland
Consecutive sentencing under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)	Record supports necessity and proportionality for consecutive terms	Trial court failed to make the statutory specific findings before imposing consecutive sentences	Court: sentencing contrary to law for failure to find (a),(b), or (c); remand for resentencing

State v. Stojetz, 84 Ohio St.3d 452, 705 N.E.2d 329 (Ohio 1999) (questions are not hearsay because they are non-assertive)
State v. Lewis, 22 Ohio St.2d 125, 258 N.E.2d 445 (Ohio 1970) (out-of-court statements admissible when offered for a non-truth purpose, e.g., to explain actions)
State v. Thomas, 61 Ohio St.2d 223, 400 N.E.2d 401 (Ohio 1980) (clarifies admission of statements to explain witness conduct)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-part ineffective-assistance test: deficient performance and prejudice)
State v. Bradley, 42 Ohio St.3d 136, 538 N.E.2d 373 (Ohio 1989) (applies Strickland standard with presumption that counsel’s conduct is reasonable)