State v. Howell
2012 Ohio 4349
Ohio Ct. App.2012Background
- Defendant Howell assaulted Edna Davis during a July 7, 2008 incident at 1823 Glenwood Ave., where Harrison (Davis) had been involved with Howell for about seven weeks.
- Davis was forced to strip, blood from a broken nose occurred, and Howell fired a gun twice while threatening her with a machete and other weapons.
- Davis escaped naked after several hours and alerted police; a MAC-11 firearm and related evidence were recovered from the Glenwood house.
- Howell was indicted on kidnapping, felonious assault, attempted murder (not pursued), domestic violence (later dismissed), and weapons under disability with firearm specifications; the weapon charge was bifurcated.
- At trial, the jury found Howell not guilty of attempted murder and felonious assault, but convicted him of assault (a lesser included offense), kidnapping, and the firearm specification; Howell later pled no contest to weapons under disability.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Crim.R. 16/ Brady and witness disclosure | State failed to provide Garner’s witness list and Davis’s complaint. | Howell was deprived of discovery and witness information; sanctions warranted. | No reversible error; failure to object barred plain-error review; evidence and disclosures were sufficiently provided. |
| Prosecutorial misconduct during questioning and closing | Prosecutor improperly attacked defense counsel and suggested lack of truthfulness in Davis. | No plain error; comments did not alter fairness of trial. | No reversible plain error; remarks viewed in context did not deprive defendant of a fair trial. |
| Fourth Amendment/ standing and chain of custody issues | Police unlawfully entered the house and mishandled the gun; evidence should have been suppressed. | Howell lacked standing to challenge the initial search; chain-of-custody concerns affect weight, not admissibility. | Howell had no standing to challenge the initial search; chain of custody affects weight, not admissibility. |
| Effective assistance of counsel | Counsel failed to pursue discovery, experts, suppression motions, and lesser-included offenses. | Counsel's performance met objective standard; no prejudice shown. | No ineffective-assistance claim; trial counsel deemed competent; no prejudice demonstrated. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Joseph, 73 Ohio St.3d 450 (Ohio 1995) (Crim.R.16 prejudice standard for discovery violations)
- State v. Krupa, 2010-Ohio-6268 (Ohio 2010) (plain-error review when no objection insured review)
- State v. Waddell, 75 Ohio St.3d 163 (Ohio 1996) (plain-error standard for discovery/ remarks)
- State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (Ohio 1997) (weight of the evidence; standard for appellate review)
- State v. Smith, 14 Ohio St.3d 13 (Ohio 1984) (prosecutorial misconduct—fair-trial standard)
- State v. LaMar, 95 Ohio St.3d 181 (Ohio 2002) (fair-trial analysis; context matters)
- State v. Carter, 89 Ohio St.3d 593 (Ohio 2000) (lesser-included offense warranted when evidence supports)
- State v. DeMarco, 31 Ohio St.3d 191 (Ohio 1987) (cumulative-error doctrine; need multiple errors)