State v. Hammond, 2017 Ohio 8574

Ramal Hammond was tried by bench trial for murder, two counts of felonious assault, and having a weapon while under disability after the April 14, 2014 shooting death of Jamal Rolling.
Within 24 hours of the victim’s shooting, Hammond suffered a gunshot wound causing a traumatic brain injury and significant amnesia for events surrounding the offense; competency evaluations followed.
Two experts agreed Hammond had amnesia and memory/new-learning impairments; one opined he could not assist in his defense, the other opined he could with accommodations. The trial court found him competent and provided accommodations during trial.
No eyewitness to the shooting; circumstantial evidence placed Hammond with the victim shortly before the shot, the victim purportedly called Hammond’s name as he collapsed, and a firearm and shell evidence were recovered at the scene.
Hammond waived a jury; the trial court acquitted him of aggravated murder and one firearms offense but convicted him of murder (R.C. 2903.02(B)), two felonious assaults, and having a weapon while under disability; he appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Hammond)	Held
Competency to stand trial	Hammond understood proceedings and could assist with accommodations; trial court applied correct legal test	Hammond’s brain injury and amnesia rendered him incapable of assisting counsel; due process violated	Court affirmed competency; reliable, credible evidence supported trial court’s finding and accommodations were provided
Ineffective assistance of counsel	Counsel’s decisions were reasonable; no prejudice shown	Counsel failed to move to exclude alleged dying declaration; performance deficient	Court held counsel not ineffective; no deficient performance or prejudice established
Sufficiency of the evidence	Circumstantial evidence (presence with victim, jacket change, dying declaration, shell evidence) supports convictions	Evidence is weak and questionable; insufficient to sustain murder conviction	Court found evidence legally sufficient when viewed in light most favorable to prosecution
Manifest weight of the evidence	Credibility and inferences supported verdict; not an exceptional case warranting reversal	Inconsistencies and medical testimony undermine victim’s ability to verbalize and cast doubt	Court concluded verdict was not against manifest weight; no miscarriage of justice

State v. Berry, 72 Ohio St.3d 354 (Ohio 1995) (due process bars trying legally incompetent defendants)
Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402 (U.S. 1960) (competency standard: factual and rational understanding and ability to consult with counsel)
State v. Brooks, 25 Ohio St.3d 144 (Ohio 1986) (amnesia alone does not render defendant incompetent)
State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (Ohio 1997) (manifest-weight standard)
State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (Ohio 1991) (sufficiency standard: review in light most favorable to prosecution)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)