State v. Howard-Ross
2015 Ohio 4810
Ohio Ct. App.2015Background
- Defendant Derrick Howard-Ross (aka Derrick Ross-Howard) shot into a residence; the male victim was struck; defendant admitted firing but claimed self‑defense.
- Jury convicted defendant of discharging a firearm into a habitation, felonious assault, and two firearm specifications; aggregate sentence 19 years.
- At trial defendant exhibited disruptive behavior (snapping fingers, tapping pen, calling counsel); judge made an in‑chamber admonishment including an exaggerated threat to "strap" and "tape" him.
- A female witness, on cross, blurted an unsolicited statement alleging defendant raped her, hit her, and bit her son; defense objected and moved for mistrial but did not request a curative instruction.
- Defense sought a recess to obtain a DVD player to play a recorded prior statement of the male victim for impeachment; the court denied the recess, ruling the impeachment matter (relationship status) irrelevant.
- At sentencing the court relied on offense seriousness, dangerousness to multiple victims (including a toddler), and defendant’s criminal history; defendant contended the court improperly considered his trial conduct and credibility.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether judge's in‑chambers threats chilled defendant's right to participate | Court has discretion to control courtroom and sanction disruptive defendants | Threats to gag/"electric chair" chilled communication with counsel and violated due process | No prejudice; remarks were outside jury presence and within judge's discretion to curb disruption — overruled |
| Whether witness's unsolicited mention of rape/assault required mistrial | Testimony was inadvertent response to question; curative instruction rather than mistrial is the proper remedy | Statement of prior bad acts (rape, child assault) so inflammatory a mistrial was required | Error was harmless: testimony inadmissible but no reasonable probability it affected verdict — overruled |
| Whether trial court abused discretion by denying recess to obtain DVD for impeachment | Court need not grant recess for counsel's lack of preparation; impeachment topic (relationship status) was irrelevant | Denial prevented presentation of prior inconsistent statement that impeached key witness | Proper: evidence irrelevant to shooting/self‑defense; counsel should bring necessary equipment — overruled |
| Whether sentencing relied on improper factors (trial conduct, refusal to accept responsibility, credibility) | Court may consider public safety, seriousness, offender history; did not rely on trial behavior or acceptance of responsibility | Court impermissibly considered trial behavior and untruthfulness when imposing sentence | Sentence within statutory range; record shows court relied on permissible factors (dangerousness, victims' ages/number, criminal history) — overruled |
Key Cases Cited
- Illinois v. Allen, 397 U.S. 337 (1970) (trial judges have discretion to control disruptive defendants and may use several remedies)
- State v. Clifford, 162 Ohio St. 370 (1955) (trial judge empowered to maintain courtroom decorum)
- State v. Breedlove, 26 Ohio St.2d 178 (1971) (evidence of other unrelated crimes is generally inadmissible)
- State v. Jones, 90 Ohio St.3d 403 (2000) (recognition that an error‑free trial is not guaranteed and standards for reversal)
- State v. Schiebel, 55 Ohio St.3d 71 (1990) (trial court’s broad discretion in ruling on mistrial motions)
- State v. Lytle, 48 Ohio St.2d 391 (1977) (harmless error standard where unlawful testimony does not contribute to conviction)