2021 Ohio 536
Ohio Ct. App.2021Background
- On April 27, 2018 McKenzie engaged in a standoff and then fired a gun at/near neighbors; police charged him with two counts of felonious assault (victims: Carl Keller and minor B.K.) and two counts of inducing panic; he was already facing a protection-order violation (McKenzie I).
- McKenzie pleaded guilty to the protection-order violation after a competency evaluation; later bond was revoked and new felony charges (McKenzie II) were filed.
- The trial court ordered competency restoration (Summit Behavioral Healthcare); after restoration McKenzie requested and received a sanity-at-time-of-offense evaluation by Dr. Erin Nichting.
- Dr. Nichting found McKenzie suffered a serious mental disease at the time of the shooting but concluded the evidence did not support a not-guilty-by-reason-of-insanity (NGRI) defense.
- After a two-day jury trial in September 2019 the jury convicted McKenzie on both felonious-assault counts and both inducing-panic counts; the inducing-panic counts were merged for sentencing and McKenzie received consecutive prison terms totaling nine years (including the prior sentence).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (McKenzie) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether felonious-assault convictions are against the manifest weight of the evidence | Witnesses testified McKenzie threatened people, pointed the gun sideways, and fired in the general direction of Keller and B.K.; jury could infer knowing intent | McKenzie said he intended to shoot himself, fired into an open field, did not aim at anyone, so he lacked the requisite "knowingly" mens rea | Affirmed. The jury reasonably credited witness testimony that McKenzie threatened others and fired toward victims; a firearm fired in that manner supports a finding of knowing conduct and the verdict was not against the manifest weight of the evidence |
| Whether trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by (a) not objecting to admission of Dr. Nichting’s sanity report and (b) failing to rigorously cross-examine the doctor | Counsel's choices were strategic: admission highlighted that McKenzie suffered a severe mental disease (supporting an NGRI argument) even though the doctor rejected NGRI; cross-examination was limited to avoid emphasizing unfavorable opinions | Counsel failed to object and effectively abandoned the NGRI defense; State used the report to elicit incriminating testimony on cross | Affirmed. Counsel's conduct was reasonable trial strategy; questions asked on cross related to McKenzie’s mental state (permitted under R.C. 2945.371(J) as construed in Harris); McKenzie failed to show deficient performance or prejudice under Strickland |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (Ohio 1997) (sets Ohio manifest-weight standard)
- State v. DeHass, 10 Ohio St.2d 230 (Ohio 1967) (deference to jury credibility determinations)
- Seasons Coal Co. v. Cleveland, 10 Ohio St.3d 77 (Ohio 1984) (factfinder best positioned to assess witness demeanor)
- United States v. Bailey, 444 U.S. 394 (U.S. 1980) (definition and analysis of "knowingly" in criminal context)
- State v. Widner, 69 Ohio St.2d 267 (Ohio 1982) (firearm is an inherently dangerous instrumentality)
- State v. Lockett, 49 Ohio St.2d 48 (Ohio 1976) (use of a firearm creates substantial risk of serious injury)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)