State v. Groves, 2022 Ohio 443

Background

Jessica Groves was tried jointly with her husband for the death of their infant son Dylan; a jury convicted her of aggravated murder, murder, kidnapping, child endangerment, tampering with evidence, interference with custody, gross abuse of a corpse, and multiple felonious assaults.
Hospital and child-services records showed maternal drug use (methamphetamine, fentanyl, opiates) during pregnancy, neonatal abstinence signs in Dylan, and the child later died of blunt‑force trauma; Dylan’s body was concealed in milk crates and dumped in a well.
At trial Groves (with her counsel’s opening statement) admitted she alone caused Dylan’s injuries and would testify to that effect; the joint strategy aimed to exculpate her husband, who admitted only to concealment.
Evidence included umbilical cord toxicology, medical testimony of multiple skull, rib and limb fractures, jailhouse conversations, and forensic pathologist testimony that death was homicidal violence.
The trial court sentenced Groves to life without parole plus 32 years; on appeal she alleged ineffective assistance of counsel based on counsel’s concessions, other omissions (no investigative funding, no severance motion, limited cross‑examination, no mitigation at sentencing), and claimed prejudice.

Issues

Issue	State's Argument	Groves' Argument	Held
1) Whether counsel was ineffective for conceding Groves’ guilt and steering a strategy that blamed her alone to protect co‑defendant	Strategy was adopted with Groves’ informed consent; concessions were tactical and intended to protect co‑defendant; overwhelming evidence supported conviction	Counsel abandoned advocacy, acted like a prosecutor, and prejudiced Groves by admitting guilt and eliciting damaging testimony	No ineffective assistance: court found Groves repeatedly approved the strategy, McCoy not triggered, and no reasonable probability of a different outcome given the evidence (Strickland applied)
2) Failure to seek investigative/expert funding under R.C. 2929.024	No particularized showing of necessity was made; record lacks demonstration that denial produced an unfair trial	Counsel unreasonably failed to request funds for investigative services that were necessary to the defense	Denial not shown: Groves failed to show particularized need or prejudice from lack of experts/investigators
3) Failure to move to sever the joint trial	Joinder favored (judicial economy); the defendants coordinated strategy and defenses were not irreconcilably antagonistic	Joint trial prejudiced Groves; antagonistic defenses warranted severance	No abuse of discretion: defenses were not mutually exclusive given agreed strategy; no showing of prejudice from joint trial
4) Alleged inadequate preparation of Groves for testimony and limited cross‑examination of forensic pathologist	Counsel’s questioning and cross were consistent with the chosen strategy and client directives; evidence was overwhelming	Counsel failed to prepare Groves, elicited evasive testimony, and did not meaningfully challenge autopsy causation	No ineffective assistance: counsel’s performance fell within strategic choices, and Groves failed to show a reasonable probability of a different verdict
5) Failure to present mitigation at sentencing	Record included competency evaluation and other mitigation considerations; defendant had authority to direct mitigation strategy	Counsel failed to pursue mitigation (post‑partum depression, witnesses, parole possibilities)	No prejudice shown: defendant’s competency report and record did not demonstrate a reasonable probability sentencing would differ; client control over mitigation acknowledged

Key Cases Cited

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two‑part test for ineffective assistance: deficient performance and prejudice)
McCoy v. Louisiana, 138 S. Ct. 1500 (2018) (defendant’s autonomy to insist on testifying to innocence; counsel cannot concede guilt over client’s objection)
Florida v. Nixon, 543 U.S. 175 (2004) (counsel may concede guilt when defendant is silent or fails to object)
State v. Mason, 82 Ohio St.3d 144 (1998) (statutory/constitutional standards for funding experts/investigators in capital/aggravated murder cases)
State v. Froman, 162 Ohio St.3d 435 (2020) (counsel concession issues under Ohio law and defendant assent)
Zafiro v. United States, 506 U.S. 534 (1993) (joinder/severance principles; antagonistic defenses not automatically coercive)
Jenkins v. Ohio, 15 Ohio St.3d 164 (Ohio standard on expert funding and indigent defendants)
Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (2000) (failure to investigate and present mitigating evidence can be prejudicial at sentencing)
Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010) (reasonableness measured by prevailing professional norms)
Hinton v. Alabama, 571 U.S. 263 (2014) (prejudice analysis and reasonableness of counsel’s expert‑related decisions)
State v. Burgins, 44 Ohio App.3d 158 (1988) (defense counsel admitting disbelief in client can constitute abandonment of defense)
State v. Goodwin, 84 Ohio St.3d 331 (1999) (case‑by‑case review of counsel concessions and whether they constitute abandonment)