State v. Jenkins
2014 Ohio 3123
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2014Background
- On July 24, 2013, Ernest L. Jenkins collided with a horse trailer after crossing the center line; he was charged with OVI (R.C. 4511.19(A)(1)(a)) and driving left of center.
- Trooper Rachel Efaw investigated, observed slurred speech, slow demeanor, odor of alcohol in her patrol car, constricted pupils, and administered field sobriety tests (HGN 6/6, walk-and-turn 6/8, one-leg-stand with clues). Jenkins refused a urine test at the post.
- At trial Trooper Bobby Brown testified the impact occurred in the trailer’s lane; Trooper Efaw described impairment indicators and her decision to request urine rather than breath testing because pupils were constricted.
- Jenkins testified he accidentally drank a friend’s beer, blamed bright sunlight and knee problems for poor performance on sobriety tests, and disputed some officer observations.
- A jury found Jenkins guilty of OVI and driving left of center. Jenkins appealed arguing ineffective assistance of counsel for (1) not challenging a biased juror and (2) eliciting testimony suggesting drug use, and (3) that the OVI conviction was against the manifest weight of the evidence.
- The appellate court affirmed, finding no deficient performance by counsel and no prejudice, and concluding the verdict was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Jenkins) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Ineffective assistance for failing to challenge a juror | Trial strategy in voir dire was reasonable; juror answered she could be impartial | Counsel should have excused or further questioned a juror who allegedly held anti-drinking and anti-police views | No deficient performance or prejudice; counsel’s voir dire decisions fall within reasonable trial strategy; juror indicated she could be impartial, so claim fails |
| 2) Ineffective assistance for eliciting testimony suggesting drug use | Questions were legitimate; trooper’s explanation for urine test was responsive and not outcome-determinative | Counsel improperly invited testimony implying Jenkins used controlled substances, prejudicing the jury | Even assuming error, Jenkins cannot show reasonable probability of a different outcome; ample other evidence of alcohol impairment; no prejudice |
| 3) Manifest weight challenge to OVI conviction | Evidence (HGN, walk-and-turn, odor, demeanor) supports conviction | Trooper observations were inconsistent or explained by sunlight, injuries, crash stress; jury lost its way | Verdict affirmed; the jury reasonably credited the troopers’ observations over Jenkins’ explanations; not the exceptional case requiring reversal |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (trial counsel must provide reasonably effective assistance)
- Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328 (Ohio 2012) (manifest-weight standard and deference to factfinder credibility determinations)
- Thompkins v. Ohio, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (Ohio 1997) (clarifies manifest-weight review)
- Mundt v. Ohio, 115 Ohio St.3d 22 (Ohio 2007) (deference to counsel’s jury-selection strategy)
- Trimble v. Ohio, 122 Ohio St.3d 297 (Ohio 2009) (counsel best positioned to evaluate juror for cause/peremptory use)
- Powell v. Ohio, 132 Ohio St.3d 233 (Ohio 2012) (Strickland standard reiterated for Ohio law)
- McMann v. Richardson, 397 U.S. 759 (counsel requirement under Sixth Amendment)