State v. Hussing
2012 Ohio 4938
Ohio Ct. App.2012Background
- Hussing pled guilty to one count of attempted involuntary manslaughter; sentencing delayed for PSI and psychiatric report.
- Indicted in April 2009 on involuntary manslaughter, three counts of child endangerment, and one count of felonious assault for Willy’s death.
- Willy died in 2007/2008 from Hodgkin’s Lymphoma; death ruled a homicide due to failure to seek medical care.
- CCDCFS became involved posthumously; victim-impact statement from CCDCFS described siblings’ impacts.
- Trial court imposed the maximum eight-year term for the charge; Hussing appealed alleging four errors.
- Appellate court affirmed Hussing’s conviction and rejected the four asserted errors.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Crim.R.11 compliance and voluntariness of the plea | State argues plea complied with Crim.R.11(C) and was voluntary | Hussing contends the court failed to adequately explain self-incrimination rights and sentence | Plea valid; strict compliance met for right against self-incrimination; maximum-sentence explanation sufficient |
| Validity of the maximum sentence | State asserts court properly considered Kalish factors and sentenced within statutory range | Hussing argues sentence was excessive | Kalish prongs satisfied; no abuse of discretion; eight years allowed |
| Consideration of a victim impact statement | State maintains CCDCFS could speak as victim’s representative; impact statement permissible | Hussing argues not a victim; improper consideration | Statement admissible under R.C. 2930; allowed as victim’s representative |
| Admission of expert testimony at sentencing | State contends unsworn expert testimony rebutted defense theory; testimony relevant to sentencing | Hussing objects to unsworn testimony and lack of cross-examination | Unswrorn testimony allowed; evidence not new; cross-examination not requested; admissible |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Veney, 120 Ohio St.3d 176 (2008) (strict vs substantial compliance in Crim.R. 11)
- State v. Ballard, 66 Ohio St.2d 473 (1981) (strict compliance for constitutional rights)
- State v. Stewart, 51 Ohio St.2d 86 (1977) (constitutional rights require strict compliance; nonconstitutional rights require substantial compliance)
- State v. Nero, 56 Ohio St.3d 106 (1990) (substantial compliance standard for nonconstitutional rights)
- State v. Clark, 119 Ohio St.3d 239 (2008) (Crim.R.11(C) compliance delineation)
- State v. Kalish, 120 Ohio St.3d 23 (2008) (two-prong Kalish sentencing review)