State v. Krause
2017 Ohio 7952
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Appellant Richard Krause was charged with two counts of misdemeanor assault for incidents at Final Score bar on April 4, 2015; identity of the assailant was the central dispute.
- Multiple prosecution witnesses (victims and bar patrons) identified Krause at trial; defense presented an alibi witness (Maria Crowe) who testified Krause was at her home that night.
- On cross-examination the prosecutor used a screenshot of Crowe’s Facebook post (“Final Score”) and comments to impeach her alibi; defense did not object at trial.
- After conviction by jury, Krause filed multiple Crim.R. 33 motions for a new trial asserting newly discovered evidence (a man, Rick Wohr, later claimed to be the assailant), prosecutorial misconduct, and surprise regarding undisclosed Facebook comments.
- The trial court held evidentiary hearings, reopened the hearing after arrests for perjury/intimidation of witnesses, and ultimately denied the new-trial motions; Krause was sentenced and appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Manifest weight of the evidence | State: witness testimony was credible and sufficient to identify Krause | Krause: testimony conflicted on identity; jury lost its way | Court: conviction not against manifest weight; jury credited witnesses |
| Sufficiency (Crim.R. 29) | State: presented enough evidence for each element (identity, harm) | Krause: insufficient evidence to prove he was the assailant beyond reasonable doubt | Court: Crim.R. 29 properly denied; evidence was sufficient |
| Prosecutor’s credibility comments in closing | State: closing remarks within permissible latitude; court instructed jury about credibility | Krause: prosecutor vouched for witnesses and prejudiced jury; counsel ineffective for not objecting | Court: comments not prejudicial given curative instructions and strong evidence; ineffective-assistance claim fails |
| New-trial claims (new evidence & nondisclosure of Facebook comments) | State: Wohr’s belated statements and limited Facebook comments do not create strong probability of different result; nondisclosure not material | Krause: Wohr’s affidavits and undisclosed Facebook comments would have supported alibi and warranted new trial | Court: trial court did not abuse discretion—new evidence credibility doubtful and undisclosed comments not material to outcome |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (Ohio 1997) (standard for manifest-weight review)
- State v. Martin, 20 Ohio App.3d 172 (1st Dist. 1983) (quoted in Thompkins on manifest-weight test)
- State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (Ohio 1991) (standard for sufficiency review)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-part test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (U.S. 1963) (prosecutor’s duty to disclose evidence affecting due process)