State v. Love
101 N.E.3d 623
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Defendant Anthony Love was tried (with co-defendant Mazzaro) for six counts of felonious assault arising from a street fight in Mt. Adams; two counts relating to Hernandez were dismissed on Crim.R. 29 motion, four counts went to the jury.
- Victims Liranzo and Thibodeaus suffered stab and other serious injuries requiring hospitalization and staples; testimony and an officer's observation placed Love striking and kicking during the incident and a prosecution witness (hostile) reported Love admitted stabbing someone.
- Love asserted the affirmative defense of defense of another (claiming he acted to protect Mazzaro); trial court instructed on the definition and burden (preponderance) but did not instruct the jury how to apply a finding on that affirmative defense to the verdict form.
- Love did not object to the jury instructions at trial, raising the issue on appeal as plain error under Crim.R. 52(B).
- The jury convicted Love on multiple felonious-assault counts; on appeal the court found sufficiency of the evidence adequate but reversed and remanded for a new trial due to the defective/omitted instruction regarding how to apply the affirmative defense.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of the evidence for felonious assault | State: Evidence (stab wounds, hospitalization, witness and officer testimony) proves felonious assault beyond reasonable doubt | Love: convictions unsupported by evidence | Held: Convictions supported by sufficient evidence (overruled third assignment) |
| Jury instruction on affirmative defense (defense of another) — omission of application direction | State: Trial court's instructions were adequate; no plain error | Love: Court failed to tell jury how to apply a finding that he proved the defense by a preponderance, leaving verdict application unclear | Held: Trial court erred by omitting instruction on how to apply the jury's finding on the affirmative defense; error was plain and affected outcome; reversal and remand for new trial (first assignment sustained) |
| Plain-error review because no contemporaneous objection | State: Error waived absent plain error; reversal requires showing error, obviousness, and effect on outcome | Love: Even without objection, omission was plain error meeting the three-prong test and caused manifest miscarriage | Held: Error was obvious and affected substantial rights — warranted reversal (applies Crim.R. 52(B)) |
| Cumulative/other claims (evidence weight, club affiliation testimony, ineffective assistance) | State: Remaining claims moot if instructional error requires new trial | Love: Raised multiple additional errors including prejudicial evidence and counsel effectiveness | Held: Court remanded for new trial on instructional error, rendering remaining assignments moot |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Martin, 20 Ohio App.3d 172 (Ohio Ct. App.) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence)
- State v. Long, 53 Ohio St.2d 91 (Ohio 1978) (plain-error rule should be applied with utmost caution)
- State v. Underwood, 3 Ohio St.3d 12 (Ohio 1983) (plain error/forfeiture framework)
- State v. Barnes, 94 Ohio St.3d 21 (Ohio 2002) (Crim.R. 52(B) three-prong analysis and discretionary correction)
- State v. Roberts, 109 Ohio App.3d 634 (Ohio Ct. App.) (need to instruct jury how proof of affirmative defense operates in relation to verdict)