State v. Kinsworthy
2014 Ohio 1584
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- Indicted in Warren County on four counts: domestic violence, menacing by stalking, burglary, and criminal damaging, arising from March–April 2012 events with Katy Wall.
- Defendant Joseph D. Kinsworthy, Iraq veteran with PTSD and traumatic brain injury, had prior domestic violence conviction and fluctuating relationship with Wall; they share a son.
- March 24, 2012 argument led to property damage and threats; March 25, 2012 altercation included kicking Wall’s car; text messages threatened harm.
- Wall obtained a civil protection order in May 2012 based on the March 2012 conduct; visitation rights were suspended pending outcome.
- April 12 windshield vandalism and April 20 burglary at Wall’s condo, with police involvement and evidence of property damage and missing items.
- First jury trial (Sept 2012) acquitted on domestic violence and second-degree burglary, found guilty only of criminal damaging; hung on burglary lesser-offense and menacing by stalking. Second trial (Mar 1, 2013) resulted in convictions for menacing by stalking (4th-degree felony) and burglary (3rd-degree felony) and consecutive sentencing totaling 27 months.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether admission of other-acts evidence was proper under Evid.R. 404(B). | Kinsworthy argues admission of prior incarceration, suicide threats, threats to kill a correctional officer, and past breaking of Wall’s belongings violated 404(B). | Kinsworthy contends such evidence was impermissible character evidence. | No reversible error; plain error not shown; evidence related to history of violence was probative and the defense invited the testimony. |
| Whether the rebuttal testimony by Officer Downs was admissible. | Downs’ testimony admitted to rebut Marcia’s statements; claims hearsay/404(B) issues. | Testimony was improper rebuttal. | Not plain error; substantial prior evidence and defenses mitigated potential prejudice. |
| Whether trial counsel provided ineffective assistance. | Counsel failed to mention alibi, made damaging questions, and did not object to certain testimony. | Counsel’s strategy and decisions were reasonable trial tactics. | No ineffective assistance; defenses and strategy supported by record; no prejudice shown. |
| Whether the convictions for menacing by stalking and burglary are supported by sufficient evidence and not against the weight of the evidence. | State had substantial evidence of pattern of conduct and burglary actions establishing both crimes. | Evidence insufficient to prove pattern of conduct and linkage to burglary beyond reasonable doubt. | Convictions upheld; not against the weight or sufficiency of the evidence. |
| Whether the trial court properly sentenced and merged offenses. | Burglary and menacing by stalking should merge as allied offenses; aggregate sentence should be reconsidered. | Offenses are not allied and may be sentenced consecutively. | No merger; consecutive 27-month term affirmed; proper under Johnson/Lane framework. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hart v. State, 2009-Ohio-997 (12th Dist. Warren No. CA2008-06-079 (2009)) (Evid.R. 404(B) purposes in character/other-acts evidence; relevance to intent and pattern of conduct)
- State v. Williams, 2007-Ohio-911 (12th Dist. Butler No. CA2006-04-085 (2007)) (Invited error; limits on appellate review for admitted evidence)
- State v. Johnson, 128 Ohio St.3d 153 (2010-Ohio-6314 (2010)) (Johnson test for allied offenses under R.C. 2941.25)
- State v. Lane, 2014-Ohio-562 (12th Dist. Butler No. CA2013-05-074 (2014)) (Johnson framework application to determine merger; three-step test for consecutive sentences)
- State v. Snyder, 2011-Ohio-6346 (12th Dist. Butler No. CA2011-02-018 (2011)) (Illustrates allied-offenses analysis)
- State v. Murphy, 2009-Ohio-6745 (12th Dist. Butler No. CA2009-05-128 (2009)) (Trial-strategy not ineffective assistance; cross-examination scope)