State v. Howell
2019 Ohio 3182
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- Howell was indicted for two separate April–May 2014 shootings (Saha and Wright) and a separate May 1, 2014 assault on Houston; he pled guilty to felonious assault on the Houston charge and was tried by jury on the Saha-related counts.
- Evidence at trial included witness testimony (customers, a former girlfriend Monique Tatum, and a cellmate Rufus Harris), forensic evidence (a white plastic bag with a mixed-DNA profile), and Cybergenetics’ TrueAllele probabilistic genotyping linking Howell and the victim to the bag.
- Defense questioned TrueAllele’s reliability but ultimately withdrew a formal Daubert challenge; Cybergenetics provided validation materials and source-code access under confidentiality to defense experts.
- Tatum testified implicating Howell; outside the jury’s presence she later claimed Howell/defense contacted her to rewrite her statement, which defense attorneys denied in court and characterized her as a perjurer.
- The jury convicted Howell on all counts related to Saha; he later pled to certain Wright-related counts. The trial court imposed life without parole for aggravated murder of Saha plus consecutive terms for other offenses and fines, all to run consecutively to the separate eight-year felonious-assault term.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defense counsel rendered ineffective assistance by denying witness-tampering allegations instead of seeking findings or a mistrial | Counsel’s denials were reasonable trial strategy; pursuing further would not have helped | Counsel was deficient for failing to seek factual findings or mistrial after alleged witness tampering | Not ineffective; counsel’s tactical decision was reasonable and not prejudicial |
| Whether the trial court improperly bolstered state DNA testimony by commenting on TrueAllele reliability | Court’s remark was not prejudicial; the challenged cross concerned a local analyst not the vendor; TrueAllele has been accepted and nothing shows unreliability | Court’s comments bolstered the state expert and prejudiced Howell’s right to a fair trial | No prejudicial error; comments considered in context and TrueAllele reliability not shown to be doubtful |
| Whether consecutive sentences (including those consecutive to life-without-parole) were improper | Consecutive terms were necessary to protect the public and punish; findings were made on the record | Imposition of additional consecutive terms to a LWOP sentence was unnecessary and disproportionate | Issue deemed moot regarding practical effect; in any event statutory findings for consecutive terms were made and sentencing upheld |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-part ineffective-assistance test: deficient performance and prejudice)
- State v. Calhoun, 86 Ohio St.3d 279 (1999) (presumption of competence for licensed attorneys)
- State v. Carter, 72 Ohio St.3d 545 (1995) (tactical decisions normally do not constitute ineffective assistance)
- State v. Wade, 53 Ohio St.2d 182 (1978) (standards for evaluating prejudicial effect of a judge’s remarks)
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) (trial-court gatekeeping for scientific expert admissibility)
- State v. Porterfield, 106 Ohio St.3d 5 (2005) (review of life-sentence sequencing issues may be appropriate on appeal)