State v. Lasenby, 2014 Ohio 1878

Background

Defendant Willie L. Lasenby was tried by jury on two counts of rape (one count convicted) after an incident on Nov. 22, 2012; jury found him guilty of one count of rape (R.C. 2907.02(A)(1)(c)) and not guilty on the other count and firearm spec.; sentenced to 8 years imprisonment and Tier III sex‑offender classification.
Victim S.T. testified she drank heavily with Lasenby and others, vomited repeatedly, had memory gaps, and woke up with Lasenby on top of her with his fingers inserted in her vagina; she testified she tried to push him but her hands were weak.
A SANE nurse performed a sexual‑assault exam; no DNA was recovered from the kit. Police recovered vomit and the victim's underwear from the residence; Lasenby admitted in a recorded interview that he knew S.T. was intoxicated and that he put his fingers in her vagina.
At voir dire Juror 4 disclosed she was a registered nurse who had performed rape kits; defense counsel questioned her but did not move to remove her for cause or use a peremptory to strike her; counsel later requested a second voir dire of Juror 4 after the State rested and the trial court denied the request.
On appeal Lasenby raised (1) that his conviction was against the manifest weight of the evidence because S.T. was not shown to be substantially impaired and (2) ineffective assistance of counsel for allegedly inadequate voir dire of Juror 4.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Lasenby)	Held
Whether the conviction was against the manifest weight of the evidence (substantial impairment)	S.T.'s testimony, vomiting evidence, SANE and police testimony, and Lasenby's admission support that S.T. was substantially impaired by voluntary intoxication and that Lasenby knew it	Lasenby contends S.T. spoke clearly early, refused advances, vomiting alone is insufficient, and her statement she was a virgin shows capacity to resist/consent	Court held the weight of the evidence supports substantial impairment and affirm conviction; jurors reasonably found voluntary intoxication caused substantial impairment
Whether the State proved defendant knew or had reasonable cause to believe victim was substantially impaired	State: Lasenby's recorded statements acknowledging she was drunk and the observed vomiting satisfy knowledge element	Lasenby did not contest knowledge on appeal (no meaningful rebuttal)	Court found Lasenby's admission and the facts satisfied the knowledge requirement
Whether defense counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to further voir dire or strike Juror 4	State: counsel conducted meaningful voir dire, Juror 4 affirmed impartiality and willingness to follow law; tactical decisions tolerated; no prejudice shown	Lasenby: counsel should have explored potential bias from Juror 4's similar training to SANE witness and either removed or struck her	Court held counsel's performance was not deficient: counsel actively participated in voir dire, Juror 4 stated she could be fair, and defendant did not show actual juror bias or prejudice
Whether failure to object/reserve peremptory strike of Juror 4 prejudiced trial	State: absence of any record bias and counsel's strategic choice removed claim of prejudice	Lasenby: failing to use the unused peremptory on Juror 4 was a tactical error that caused prejudice	Court concluded no prejudice; defendant failed to show a reasonable probability of a different 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 (Ohio Ct. App. 1983) (appellate court as "thirteenth juror"; reversal only in exceptional cases)
State v. Zeh, 31 Ohio St.3d 99 (Ohio 1987) (definition of "substantial impairment" as reduction in ability to appraise or control conduct)
State v. Hatten, 186 Ohio App.3d 286 (Ohio Ct. App. 2010) (voluntary intoxication and signs such as vomiting support substantial impairment)
State v. Mundt, 115 Ohio St.3d 22 (Ohio 2007) (need to show actual juror bias for ineffective‑assistance claim based on juror seating)
State v. Jackson, 107 Ohio St.3d 53 (Ohio 2005) (voir dire must be meaningful; counsel best positioned to judge questioning)
State v. Adams, 103 Ohio St.3d 508 (Ohio 2004) (no mandated form of voir dire; trial counsel discretion)
State v. Bradley, 42 Ohio St.3d 136 (Ohio 1989) (Strickland/Bradley test for ineffective assistance)
State v. Waddy, 63 Ohio St.3d 424 (Ohio 1992) (definition of reasonable probability of a different outcome)
Miller v. Francis, 269 F.3d 609 (6th Cir. 2001) (juror‑bias requirement when alleging counsel allowed a biased juror)