State v. Keller, 2017 Ohio 2609

Around 11:45 p.m. on June 16, 2015, Michael Keller entered a residence at 24 Calumet Lane claiming someone was chasing him; residents called 911 and a deputy arrested him shortly thereafter.
Keller was indicted on trespass in a habitation (and a later-dismissed criminal damaging count); case went to jury trial.
In opening statement Keller’s counsel asserted Keller would claim he entered seeking help because he was being chased; Keller did not testify at trial.
The State introduced testimony from two residents and the arresting deputy that Keller said he was being chased; none observed any pursuers.
Over Keller’s objection the trial court allowed the State to impeach the credibility of Keller’s out-of-court statements by introducing three of Keller’s prior felony theft convictions and gave limiting and necessity instructions to the jury.
The jury convicted Keller of trespass; Keller appealed, arguing the prior-conviction impeachment was improper and violated his right not to testify and produced cumulative prejudice.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court abused its discretion by permitting the State to use Keller’s prior felony convictions to impeach his credibility regarding his claim he was being chased	State: Keller placed the claim at issue in opening statement, so the State could challenge its credibility, including with prior convictions	Keller: His out-of-court statements were hearsay; because he did not testify the State could not use his prior convictions to impeach him and doing so violated his right not to testify and was cumulative prejudice	Court: No abuse of discretion. Keller’s counsel first raised the chased-defense; the statements were not hearsay when used to prove falsity; impeachment by prior convictions was permissible; evidence was not needlessly cumulative

Morris v. Ohio, 132 Ohio St.3d 337 (Ohio 2012) (standard of review and evidentiary decision deference)
Berk v. Matthews, 53 Ohio St.3d 161 (Ohio 1990) (appellate court should not substitute its judgment for trial court's discretion)
State ex rel. Bitter v. Missig, 72 Ohio St.3d 249 (Ohio 1995) (invited-error doctrine bars a party from complaining about an error the party induced)
State v. Dickess, 884 N.E.2d 92 (Ohio Ct. App. 2008) (admission of testimony raised in defense opening implicated invited-error doctrine; comparable context for impeachment after defense raises matter)