State v. Hough
2011 Ohio 2656
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- Terrance Hough, Jr. applied under App.R. 26(B) and Murnahan to reopen this court's judgment in State v. Hough, Cuyahoga App. No. 91691, 2010-Ohio-2770.
- The prior judgment affirmed Hough’s convictions for three counts of aggravated murder and two counts of attempted murder in Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Case No. CR-499308.
- Hough claimed appellate counsel was ineffective for not arguing prosecutorial misconduct and for not better addressing forensic evidence and trial counsel’s objections.
- The State opposed the application; the court reviews under Strickland v. Washington and related Ohio standards for ineffective assistance.
- The court held that appellate counsel’s strategy decisions are within professional judgment and denied the 26(B) reopening.
- The court reaffirmed that there was overwhelming evidence of guilt and that more direct forensic argument or prosecutorial-misconduct framing would not change the result.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ineffective appellate counsel | Hough argues counsel’s performance was deficient and prejudicial. | Hough contends counsel failed to raise prosecutorial misconduct and forensic issues. | Denied; decisions about arguments and strategy were within professional judgment. |
| Prosecutorial misconduct claim | Prosecutor engaged in inflammatory, misleading conduct affecting fairness. | Appellate strategy attacked admission of other-acts and victim-impact evidence and closing arguments. | Denied; appellate strategy properly focused on weaker arguments and maintained overall fairness. |
| Trial counsel inefficacy re forensic evidence | Counsel failed to argue the forensic evidence effectively. | Counsel chose strategy consistent with appellate standards and did raise prosecutorial misconduct claims. | Denied; strategy and prejudice were not established. |
| Prejudice under Strickland | But-for errors, there is a reasonable probability of different outcomes. | Even if errors occurred, result likely would be the same given overwhelming evidence. | Denied; no reasonable probability the outcome would change. |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (establishes deficient performance and prejudice standard)
- Bradley, 42 Ohio St.3d 136 (1989) (Ohio standard for ineffective assistance)
- Jones v. Barnes, 463 U.S. 745 (U.S. 1983) (advocacy strategy; permissible to focus on strong issues)
- Allen, 1996-Ohio-366 (Ohio Sup. Ct.) (reaffirms appellate-strategy principles)
- Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78 (1935) (prosecutorial limits on argument; cannot mislead)
- Maurer, 15 Ohio St.3d 239 (1984) (standard for evaluating prosecutorial remarks)
- State v. Smith, 1984 (Ohio) (test for prosecutorial misconduct considering totality of the record)
- Bates v. Bell, 402 F.3d 635 (6th Cir. 2004) (limits on scope of arguments; admissible strong advocacy)