State v. Mankin
2020 Ohio 5317
Ohio Ct. App.2020Background
- On Jan. 24, 2019 at St. Ann’s Hospital, Jennifer Mankin recorded security officers escorting a patient; hospital policy and signage prohibited videotaping on the premises. Security repeatedly told her to stop or leave; she refused. Police arrived, ordered her to leave, and Corporal Dickinson arrested her after a physical struggle. Mankin was charged with criminal trespass and resisting arrest.
- At trial the state introduced Mankin’s phone video and hospital surveillance video; Mankin testified she was recording to document perceived mistreatment and believed she had a right to record. The jury convicted her of both offenses.
- Before and during deliberations the court gave oral and written jury instructions, but the original written instructions were not included in the certified record on appeal. The State moved to supplement the record with a verified copy of the written instructions and an affidavit from the trial judge; the appellate court granted the motion.
- Mankin raised four assignments of error on appeal: (1) trial court failed to preserve written jury instructions; (2) oral jury charge omitted the element “without privilege” for criminal trespass; (3) ineffective assistance of counsel for not objecting to instructions; and (4) trial court abused its discretion by refusing a requested necessity instruction.
- The Tenth District affirmed: it allowed supplementation of the record, held the oral omission was cured by the written instructions (no plain error), rejected ineffective-assistance claims, and found denial of the necessity instruction—if error—harmless on the facts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Failure to preserve written jury instructions in the trial record | Omission was clerical; App.R. 9(E) permits supplementation with a verified copy and judge's affidavit so appellate review is possible | Failure to maintain the original instructions with the papers violated R.C. 2315.01/2945.10 and is prejudicial (structural) | Granted State's motion to supplement with a verified copy; failure to preserve originals is not structural error and no plain error shown because the copy allowed full review; overruled. |
| 2) Oral jury charge omitted the element “without privilege” of criminal trespass | The written instructions (provided to jurors in deliberations) contained the full element and a definition of "privilege," curing the oral omission | Omission was prejudicial because Mankin’s defense focused on privilege/necessity | No plain error: charge read as a whole (oral + written) properly informed the jury; overruled. |
| 3) Ineffective assistance of counsel for not objecting to jury instructions | Trial counsel’s failure to object to two instruction elements was deficient and prejudiced the defense | Counsel’s choices were reasonable; one instruction tracked statutory law and objections would likely fail; no plain error on the oral omission so no prejudice under Strickland | Strickland test not met: objections would not likely have succeeded and no prejudice demonstrated; overruled. |
| 4) Denial of defendant’s requested jury instruction on necessity (as part of "privilege") | Necessity instruction was legally correct and supported by testimony (belief about greater harm), so jury should have been instructed | No evidence supported key necessity elements (harm from physical/natural force, imminence, no reasonable alternative); instruction risked confusing jurors | No abuse of discretion: proposed instruction omitted required elements and did not accurately state law; alternatively, any error was harmless because record lacked evidence of imminent harm or lack of alternatives; overruled. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Perry, 101 Ohio St.3d 118 (2004) (failure to preserve written jury instructions is not a structural error; analyzed under plain-error review)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong ineffective-assistance standard: deficient performance and prejudice)
- State v. Schiebel, 55 Ohio St.3d 71 (1990) (trial court should confirm accuracy before appellate supplementation of record)
- State v. Adams, 62 Ohio St.2d 151 (1980) (defendant entitled to instruction on all elements, but omission does not automatically require reversal; review the probable impact)
- State v. Joy, 74 Ohio St.3d 178 (1995) (trial court must give instructions relevant and necessary for jury to weigh evidence)
- Murphy v. Carrollton Mfg. Co., 61 Ohio St.3d 585 (1991) (no instruction where no evidentiary support exists)
- State v. Barnes, 94 Ohio St.3d 21 (2002) (plain-error test requires error, obviousness, and effect on substantial rights)
- Kettering v. Berry, 57 Ohio App.3d 66 (1988) (common-law elements of necessity explained)