State v. Kidd
2021 Ohio 3838
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2021Background
- Joseph Kidd was indicted on six counts of rape of a child under ten (fellatio and anal penetration of A.O.) for acts alleged between Nov. 21, 2015 and May 11, 2016.
- A.O. (the primary victim) initially denied abuse in a 2016 Mayerson Center interview but in a later (Nov. 2018) forensic interview disclosed multiple acts of oral and anal contact by Kidd; A.O.’s IQ/mental limitations were referenced in the record.
- M.O. (A.O.’s brother) testified he observed some abuse but his statements to police and at trial contained inconsistencies; S.O. (a sister) denied seeing abuse.
- A medical exam of the boys showed no physical trauma; expert testimony explained that normal exams are common when abuse is not recent.
- A jury convicted Kidd on all counts; the trial court imposed consecutive life-without-parole sentences and a no-contact order. On appeal the court affirmed most convictions but reversed one count for lack of venue, found certain sentencing-entry errors, and ordered vacation of the no-contact order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Kidd) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Competency of A.O. to testify | A.O. was competent; no compelling reason for sua sponte inquiry | A.O. was of unsound mind (IQ ≈58); court should have sua sponte inquired | Court: No plain error — A.O.'s testimony did not clearly call competency into question; overruled |
| Ineffective assistance for not challenging A.O. competency | Trial counsel not deficient because A.O. competency was not undermined | Counsel ineffective for failing to object to A.O.’s testimony | Court: No Strickland violation; overruled |
| Competency of M.O. to testify | M.O. met Frazier factors; court properly found him competent | M.O. was not competent given age and inconsistent testimony | Court: No plain error; M.O. competent under Frazier; overruled |
| Kidd’s competency to stand trial | Court properly accepted waiver of incompetency after evaluation efforts; counsel represented competency | Kidd lacked capacity and requested new counsel / evaluation | Court: Waiver valid and record lacked signs of incompetence; overruled |
| Venue for Count 4 (fellatio in truck) | State: circumstantial evidence and testimony permitted inference of Hamilton County venue | Kidd: testimony lacked any county/location detail; venue not proved beyond reasonable doubt | Court: Reversed conviction on Count 4 for insufficient proof of venue |
| Sufficiency of evidence for counts alleging repeated acts (counts 5 & 6) | A.O.’s testimony that acts happened "more than once" suffices to support multiple counts | Testimony too vague to support multiple specific-count convictions | Court: A.O.’s testimony sufficient; convictions on those counts upheld |
| Consecutive life sentences formality | State: sentencing findings were made at hearing to support consecutive terms | Sentencing entry omitted required statutory findings | Court: Findings were made but not incorporated in judgment entry; remand for nunc pro tunc entry |
| No-contact order | State: no objection to vacating the order given LWOP sentence | Kidd: no-contact order improper to impose in addition to LWOP | Court: Agreed with Kidd and the state; vacated no-contact order on remand |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Kinney, 35 Ohio App.3d 84 (1st Dist. 1987) (sua sponte competency inquiry required where competency is clearly called into question)
- State v. Cooper, 139 Ohio App.3d 149 (12th Dist. 2000) (a court need not inquire sua sponte absent clear questioning of competency)
- State v. Frazier, 61 Ohio St.3d 247 (1991) (factors for assessing competency of child witnesses)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- State v. Rubenstein, 40 Ohio App.3d 57 (8th Dist. 1987) (competency to stand trial standard — ability to understand proceedings and assist counsel)
- State v. Gardner, 42 Ohio App.3d 157 (1st Dist. 1988) (venue must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt)
- State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (1991) (standard for sufficiency of the evidence review)
- State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (1997) (standard for manifest-weight review)
- Bonnell v. Ohio, 140 Ohio St.3d 209 (2014) (required sentencing findings for consecutive terms must be made at hearing and incorporated into the sentence entry)
- Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957 (1991) (Eighth Amendment proportionality principles)
- McDougle v. Maxwell, 1 Ohio St.2d 68 (1964) (sentences within statutory limits generally do not constitute cruel and unusual punishment)
- Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Co., 86 Ohio St.3d 324 (1999) (trial court must note it engaged in required sentencing analysis)