State v. Madden, 100 N.E.3d 1203

Background

Frederick Madden was indicted for rape, felonious assault, and kidnapping (with repeat-violent-offender specifications) arising from an early-morning January 30, 2015 attack on A.S., who suffered significant injuries (including a three-part jaw fracture) and underwent a rape-kit exam.
A.S. testified that an unknown male dragged, beat, threatened her with a gun, removed her clothes, raped her from behind, ejaculated, and left; police recovered a maxi pad with blood and a condom at the scene.
BCI testing identified semen in vaginal and perianal samples and a DNA mixture including Madden in those samples; a condom from the scene contained a mixture of A.S. and an unknown male.
A jury convicted Madden of rape, felonious assault, and kidnapping; the trial court found the repeat-violent-offender specification true and sentenced him to 39 years and designated him a Tier III sex offender.
On appeal Madden raised three assignments: prosecutorial misconduct (vouching and repeated use of the term “victim”), ineffective assistance of counsel (failure to object to those comments, hearsay, and questioning about the witness leaving the stand), and cumulative error.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Prosecutor vouching / repeated use of term “victim”	State: references were factual or future-tense predictions about credibility; many "victim" uses were by officers describing a complainant.	Madden: prosecutor repeatedly called A.S. "victim" and vouched for her credibility in opening, denying a fair trial.	No plain error. "Victim" use was mostly by officers as "complainant" and not a comment on guilt; prosecutor's opening predicted the witness would be credible and did not imply facts outside the record; jury instructions cured any potential prejudice.
Ineffective assistance — failure to object to vouching and "victim" references	State: counsel’s failure to object was not deficient because comments weren't improper or prejudicial.	Madden: counsel should have objected; omission prejudiced outcome.	Denied. Because no prosecutorial error affecting outcome was shown, failure to object was not prejudicial under Bradley.
Evidentiary objections — hearsay and questioning about witness leaving courtroom	State: officer testimony explaining why he acted was not hearsay (offered to explain police conduct) and the officer/witness demeanor supported excited-utterance admissibility; questioning about why A.S. left was factually relevant and handled by court.	Madden: officer’s repetition of A.S.’s out-of-court statements was inadmissible hearsay; prosecutor’s questioning elicited inflammatory testimony.	Denied. Officer statements were admissible to explain police actions and A.S. testified herself; any objection likely would not have changed the outcome. Trial court’s handling of the witness leaving the stand and admonitions mitigated prejudice.
Cumulative error	State: no significant individual errors to cumulate.	Madden: combined errors deprived him of a fair trial.	Denied. Because no prejudicial errors individually, cumulative-error doctrine does not apply.

Key Cases Cited

Jackson v. State, 600 A.2d 21 (Del. 1991) (use of "victim" is permissible where crime occurrence is undisputed)
State v. Jackson, 107 Ohio St.3d 53 (2005) (prosecutor may not express personal belief about witness credibility)
State v. Keene, 81 Ohio St.3d 646 (1998) (limitations on placing prosecutor’s credibility at issue)
State v. Garner, 74 Ohio St.3d 49 (1995) (cumulative-error doctrine explained)
State v. Hill, 75 Ohio St.3d 195 (1995) (jury admonition against sympathy; emotional outbursts may not require mistrial absent prejudice)