State v. Jordan
2017 Ohio 7342
Ohio Ct. App.2017Background
- Defendant McKenna Jordan was convicted of rape and three counts of sexual battery for repeated sexual assaults of a minor who believed he was her father; assaults occurred from Dec. 2011 to July 2012. Jordan appealed and lost; while his direct appeal was pending he filed a post-conviction relief (PCR) petition.
- PCR claimed ineffective assistance of trial counsel for (1) failing to call/use retained medical expert Dr. Stephen Guertin and his supporting literature to rebut the State’s examining physician, (2) exposing evidence to possible contamination by allowing Jordan to view collected clothing, and (3) cumulative error from these alleged failings.
- At trial the State’s examining physician, Dr. Lynn Peters, testified to a normal sexual-abuse exam and explained visible injury is uncommon; defense presented forensic psychologist Phillip Esplin to address child-abuse dynamics.
- Forensic testing: initial DNA testing on the rape kit showed no foreign DNA; later BCI testing (after re-submission) detected amylase and partial DNA profiles consistent with Jordan on some items. Jordan alleges counsel’s viewing caused contamination.
- In the PCR petition Jordan submitted affidavits from Guertin, a genetics expert (Hampikian), defense counsel, and himself. The trial court denied the petition without an evidentiary hearing; Jordan appealed the denial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Jordan) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court abused discretion by denying PCR without a hearing | Trial court correctly found petition lacked sufficient operative facts to merit a hearing | PCR should have received an evidentiary hearing because affidavits raise substantive grounds (ineffective assistance) | No abuse of discretion; no hearing required (petition lacked sufficient operative facts) |
| Whether counsel was ineffective for not calling Dr. Guertin or using his literature | Counsel’s strategy to rely on cross-exam and other defense experts (Esplin) was reasonable; Guertin’s materials did not conclusively rebut State evidence | Failure to call/use Guertin and his studies denied effective assistance and prejudiced outcome | No ineffective assistance: reasonable strategy and Guertin’s materials did not show a reasonable probability of a different result |
| Whether counsel’s permitting defendant to view evidence caused contamination and ineffective assistance | Possibility of contamination goes to weight, not admissibility; affidavits speculative and do not show prejudice | Allowing view exposed clothing to defendant’s DNA, BCI results reflect contamination caused by counsel’s conduct | No ineffective assistance: contamination alleged was speculative and jury considered contamination; conviction stands |
| Whether cumulative effect of alleged errors requires relief | No multiple proven errors to cumulate | Combined errors deprived defendant of a fair trial | No relief: defendant did not prove multiple errors that meet Strickland cumulatively |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes two‑prong ineffective-assistance standard)
- State v. Bradley, 42 Ohio St.3d 136 (Ohio application of Strickland; counsel afforded presumption of competency)
- State v. Calhoun, 86 Ohio St.3d 279 (PCR petition standards; when a hearing is required)
- State v. Jackson, 64 Ohio St.2d 107 (requirement that PCR petitioner submit evidentiary documents showing constitutional deprivation)
- State v. Powell, 132 Ohio St.3d 233 (doctrine and standard for cumulative error)
- State v. DeMarco, 31 Ohio St.3d 191 (cumulative error can require reversal when combined errors deprive defendant of fair trial)