State v. Hofacker
2016 Ohio 519
Ohio Ct. App.2016Background
- Late-night intrusion: defendant Randy Hofacker knocked on the 90‑year‑old victim’s door, was let in to use the bathroom, then assaulted her and stole $2.00; victim did not have her glasses and later had trouble recalling details. Neighbor heard screams, saw a person run out the back but only saw the back and general clothing.
- Identification and arrest: neighbor later identified Hofacker by name; officer ran the name, located a mugshot, and showed that single photo to the neighbor in the victim’s presence; the victim then agreed and was later shown a six‑photo array and positively identified Hofacker. An arrest warrant followed and Hofacker’s DNA was collected at arrest.
- Forensic evidence: touch‑DNA from the victim’s bathrobe produced a mixed profile including Hofacker; the Bureau of Criminal Investigation reported an extremely low random match probability for Hofacker’s inclusion.
- Procedural history: Hofacker was indicted for aggravated robbery and robbery, acquitted of aggravated robbery but convicted of robbery; sentenced to 7 years imprisonment and ordered to pay costs and $2 restitution.
- Pretrial and trial issues: defense moved in limine to exclude evidence of the photo‑array identification (arguing suggestiveness because a single photo had been shown earlier) but did not obtain a written ruling and did not move to suppress at trial; the trial court instructed the jury to consider possible suggestiveness of the prior viewing.
- Voir dire: three prospective jurors expressed concerns about impartiality; the court rehabilitated them and denied challenges for cause; defense used peremptory strikes selectively and two of those jurors served on the jury.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Hofacker) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused discretion by denying challenges for cause to jurors who expressed doubt about impartiality | Court properly rehabilitated jurors; denial was not arbitrary and defense had peremptory challenges available | Jurors’ statements showed inability to be fair; they should have been excused for cause | No abuse of discretion; any error was non‑prejudicial because defense failed to use available peremptory strikes to remove the jurors |
| Whether defense counsel was ineffective for failing to file a motion to suppress the photo identification and any evidence derived from it (including DNA obtained after arrest) | Even if photo identification was suggestive, the DNA evidence was obtained by means sufficiently independent from the taint and would not have been suppressed; failure to move was not prejudicial | Counsel should have moved to suppress the tainted identification and derivative evidence; suppression would likely have prevented the DNA match from being obtained or admitted | Counsel’s omission not shown to be prejudicial: court found photo ID likely impermissibly suggestive, but DNA was admissible as not the fruit of unconstitutional conduct because police negligence did not require exclusion and affidavit supporting warrant included independent information |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (Ineffective assistance standard for counsel and prejudice inquiry)
- Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188 (Factors for assessing reliability of eyewitness identification)
- Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98 (Reliability of identification vs. suggestive procedures)
- Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (Fruit‑of‑the‑poisonous‑tree and purging primary taint)
- United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (Good‑faith exception to exclusionary rule and Franks standard for affidavits)
- Davis v. United States, 564 U.S. 229 (Limits on exclusionary rule; focus on deterrence and good‑faith exceptions)
- Herring v. United States, 555 U.S. 135 (Exclusionary rule not warranted for isolated negligence)
- State v. Williams, 79 Ohio St.3d 1 (Trial court discretion in juror impartiality determinations)