2016 Ohio 7749
Ohio Ct. App.2016Background
- Patrick Howell was indicted by a Delaware County grand jury on five counts of rape alleging sexual abuse of his minor daughter, D.H.; trial resulted in convictions on all counts and lengthy prison sentences.
- The State's case relied in part on DNA testing identifying D.H. as the source of DNA on a sex toy recovered from the master bedroom.
- Howell, indigent, sought court-funded appointment of a DNA expert; he requested an ex parte hearing and submitted motions, which the trial court denied after the State opposed funding.
- At trial the State presented witnesses including children services caseworker, detectives, two DNA analysts, the victim, and her mother; Howell testified in his defense.
- Post-trial, Howell appealed raising five assignments: (1) State should not be permitted to challenge indigent defendant's motion for expert funding/ex parte hearing; (2) denial of state-funded DNA expert violated due process; (3) ineffective assistance of counsel; (4) prosecutorial misconduct (vouching); (5) cumulative error.
- The appellate court affirmed the convictions, rejecting Howell's challenges to the expert funding procedure and denial, finding no ineffective assistance, no reversible prosecutorial misconduct, and no cumulative error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the State may respond to an indigent defendant's motion for court-funded expert and whether an ex parte hearing was required | State: the prosecutor may respond; ex parte hearing not mandatory absent showing of necessity | Howell: Ake requires an ex parte hearing to protect defense strategy and equal protection/self-incrimination rights | Court: No error allowing State response; ex parte hearing not required here because defendant did not particularize need for secrecy or strategy |
| Whether denial of appointed DNA expert violated due process | State: trial court has discretion; defendant failed to make a particularized showing of need | Howell: without expert, cannot meaningfully challenge State's DNA evidence; denial denied fair trial | Court: Denial was not an abuse of discretion; defendant did not make the required particularized showing that expert would aid defense or that denial caused unfair trial |
| Whether counsel provided ineffective assistance at trial | State: counsel made reasonable tactical decisions; failures alleged were not shown to be prejudicial | Howell: multiple failures (failure to object to hearsay/other acts, not moving in limine, not admitting video) prejudiced defense | Court: Strickland test not met—performance not shown to fall below objective standard nor resulting prejudice to alter outcome |
| Whether prosecutorial vouching during closing warrants reversal | State: prosecutor's remarks were contextual and urged jurors to assess credibility; no objected-to plain error | Howell: prosecutor vouched for victim's credibility, improperly influencing jury | Court: Remarks read in context did not constitute vouching; no plain error shown; no reversible misconduct |
| Whether cumulative errors deprived defendant of a fair trial | State: asserted errors were insubstantial individually and collectively | Howell: combined errors require reversal | Court: Cumulative-error doctrine inapplicable—record does not show reversible cumulative prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U.S. 68 (indigent defendant may be entitled to state-provided expert when sanity or other critical defense issue requires it)
- State v. Mason, 82 Ohio St.3d 144 (due process may require non-psychiatric expert assistance; defendant must make particularized showing)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (two-pronged test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (abuse of discretion standard)
- State v. Bradley, 42 Ohio St.3d 136 (Ohio standard applying Strickland)
- Donnelly v. DeChristoforo, 416 U.S. 637 (prosecutorial comments must be viewed in context; reversal only if comments likely affected jury verdict)
- State v. Williams, 79 Ohio St.3d 1 (prosecutorial vouching and limits on arguing witness credibility)
- State v. Benge, 75 Ohio St.3d 136 (standard for reversing based on prosecutorial misconduct)