State v. Haywood
2023 Ohio 1121
Ohio Ct. App.2023Background
- On Oct. 22, 2019 Destiny Moody was shot dead at her Wellsville, Ohio apartment; Terrance Haywood (her former boyfriend) was identified on multiple surveillance videos near the scene and in possession of items later linked to the crime scene.
- Investigators recovered the murder weapon and related items in the alley/roof; Haywood’s DNA matched DNA on a gun holster; a shoe print on the kicked-in front door matched Haywood's tread.
- Moody had previously complained about Haywood’s violence and threats; witnesses placed Haywood at or near the apartment the night of the shooting.
- The victim’s young son J.M. (four at the time of the shooting, six at voir dire) testified at trial that “my dad shot my mom.” The trial judge’s in camera voir dire of J.M. did not question him about the underlying events.
- Haywood was indicted on murder and related counts, convicted by a jury, and sentenced to 24 years to life. He appealed raising five assignments of error (child witness competency/voir dire; jury admonitions; ineffective assistance of counsel; authentication of videos/Facebook posts; cumulative error).
- The appellate court affirmed, finding the deficient voir dire was error but harmless given overwhelming other evidence; all other assignments were overruled.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Haywood) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Competency of minor witness / adequacy of in camera voir dire | Voir dire sufficiently showed child could understand truth and answer questions; child's testimony admissible | Judge failed to ask child about impressions of the crime; voir dire was inadequate and admission of the child’s testimony was reversible error | Court: Voir dire was deficient for not testing child’s impressions of the crime, but error was harmless given overwhelming independent evidence of guilt; no reversal |
| Jury admonishments between breaks (R.C. 2945.34) | Initial, extensive admonition at start of trial satisfied requirement; no juror misconduct shown | Subsequent admonitions were cursory reminders and insufficient; statutory admonishments were not repeated as required | Court: No preserved objection -> waived except plain error; no evidence of misconduct and initial admonition extensive; assignment overruled |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel (six examples) | Trial counsel’s choices were reasonable trial tactics; appellant fails to show deficiency or prejudice | Counsel failed to object/acted improperly (e.g., juror composition, misnaming victim, exhibit handling, hearsay, audio played) | Court: Defendant failed to show deficient performance or prejudice under Strickland; counsel presumed competent; assignment overruled |
| Authentication/admissibility of surveillance videos and Facebook posts | Facebook posts were stipulated authentic; videos authenticated via sponsoring witnesses and the ‘‘silent witness’’ foundation (system reliability, chain of custody) | Several videos and social media exhibits lacked proper foundation/authentication and should have been excluded | Court: Authentication standard low; adequate foundation/sponsoring witnesses and stipulation provided; no plain error; assignment overruled |
| Cumulative error | N/A (State argued no harmful errors to accumulate) | Multiple trial errors compounded to deprive defendant of fair trial | Court: Only the child voir dire was erroneous and it was harmless; no other demonstrated errors to accumulate; assignment overruled |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Maxwell, 9 N.E.3d 930 (Ohio 2014) (trial court must conduct voir dire to determine competence of child under ten and consider five Frazier factors)
- State v. Frazier, 574 N.E.2d 483 (Ohio 1991) (five-factor competency framework for child witnesses)
- State v. Clark, 644 N.E.2d 331 (Ohio 1994) (competency review refers to child’s capacity at time of trial)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-part test for ineffective assistance of counsel: deficient performance and prejudice)
- Midland Steel Prods. Co. v. U.A.W. Local 486, 573 N.E.2d 98 (Ohio 1991) (‘‘silent witness’’ theory for authenticating photographic/video evidence)
- State v. Long, 372 N.E.2d 804 (Ohio 1978) (plain-error notice reserved for exceptional circumstances)