State v. Hazel
2012 Ohio 835
Ohio Ct. App.2012Background
- Hazel was convicted by jury of two counts of domestic violence with pregnancy specifications and two prior-conviction enhancements; he received two consecutive five-year prison terms and five years of post-release control.
- Consolidation: Case No. 10CR808 (DV against Sheets on 11/5/2010) was consolidated with 10CR827 and 10CR828 (DV counts with same pregnancy spec) and with 11CR49 (felonious assault counts) into one proceeding.
- Pre-trial: State moved to call Sheets as a court’s witness due to conflicting statements in grand jury and subsequent communications; court granted this motion.
- Trial conduct: The State conceded at trial that evidence on abduction, felonious assault, and kidnapping counts was insufficient and those counts were dismissed under Crim.R. 29; three DV counts went to the jury.
- Evidence at trial: The DV incidents spanned Sept.–Nov. 2010, including September 14 (DV 10CR827), November 4 (DV 10CR828), and November 5 (DV 10CR808/11CR49) with physical injuries observed in the latter events.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the DV counts should have been dismissed for lack of cohabitation. | Hazel—Sheets was not cohabiting in a family/household member setup. | Hazel—No cohabitation evidenced; charges improper. | First assignment overruled; evidence could support cohabitation. |
| Were evidentiary rulings and prosecutorial actions collectively an abuse of discretion violating due process? | Hazel—voir dire hypotheticals and court’s witness designation violated due process. | State—voir dire proper; designation allowed; no reversible error. | Second assignment overruled; cumulative error not established. |
| Did prosecutorial conduct require reversal due to alleged misconduct concerning charges unlikely to yield conviction? | State knew some charges could not be proven; aimed to inflame jury. | Indictments' content presumed; trial record shows potential support. | Third assignment overruled; no prejudicial impact shown. |
| Was Hazel's sentence valid regarding post-release control? | Five-year post-release control imposed improperly for third-degree felonies. | Post-release control misimposed; otherwise lawful sentence. | Plain error; modify sentence to three years post-release control. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Williams, 79 Ohio St.3d 459 (1997) (cohabitation elements and domestic violence interpretation)
- State v. Apanovitch, 33 Ohio St.3d 19 (1987) (Evid.R. 614 cross-examination and court’s witness authority)