State v. Mick
108 N.E.3d 1149
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- Richard C. Mick, former reverend, was indicted on two counts of gross sexual imposition and two counts of rape involving victims under 13; jury convicted on all counts and sentenced him to concurrent five years (counts 1–2) and concurrent life (counts 3–4), with the life term consecutive.
- Mick retained private counsel K. Ronald Bailey; over the year before trial Bailey filed multiple pretrial motions and continuance requests; Mick sought funding to replace a deceased state-funded expert but the trial court denied substitution at his expense.
- On the morning voir dire began, K. Ronald Bailey announced he would refuse to participate in the trial (citing lack of investigator testimony, client health, insufficient time to review juror questionnaires, his fatigue, and denial of expert fees) and repeatedly declined to question jurors, conduct opening/closing statements, cross-examine witnesses, call defense witnesses, or proffer jury instructions.
- Bailey’s son, Kenneth Bailey, filed a notice of appearance but did not act; despite admonitions and contempt threats, K. Ronald Bailey persisted in nonparticipation throughout trial.
- The prosecution presented testimony from the alleged victims and two 404(b) witnesses (Mick’s daughter and another former attendee) and a detective; there was no physical evidence; Mick was convicted and appealed, raising ineffective-assistance, mistrial, denial of expert fees, and improper 404(b) evidence rulings.
- The Sixth District found counsel’s blanket refusal to participate constituted a complete failure to subject the prosecution’s case to adversarial testing under Cronic; Mick had not waived counsel; the court reversed and remanded for a new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Ineffective assistance of counsel | Mick: counsel’s refusal to participate denied him the Sixth Amendment right to effective counsel | State: counsel’s conduct was a tactical effort to force a mistrial and does not automatically equal ineffective assistance | Held: counsel’s total nonparticipation was a complete failure to test the prosecution’s case; Cronic triggers a presumption of prejudice; reversal required |
| 2. Trial court’s refusal to declare mistrial sua sponte | Mick: court should have declared mistrial given counsel’s abandonment | State: court was not required to sua sponte declare mistrial; conduct could be tactical | Held: Moot after resolution of ineffective-assistance claim (court did not address on merits) |
| 3. Denial of expert witness fees | Mick: lack of replacement expert impaired defense preparation | State: Mick was not indigent for state-funded substitute expert | Held: Moot after reversal (court did not address on merits) |
| 4. Admission of Evid.R. 404(B) evidence | Mick: prior-act evidence was improperly admitted and prejudicial | State: 404(B) evidence was admissible to show pattern and intent | Held: Moot after reversal (court did not address on merits) |
Key Cases Cited
- Missouri v. Frye, 566 U.S. 134 (recognizes right to effective assistance of counsel)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (two-part ineffective-assistance test: deficient performance and prejudice)
- United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648 (circumstances where prejudice is presumed when counsel completely fails to test prosecution)
- Martin v. Rose, 744 F.2d 1245 (6th Cir.) (attorney’s complete nonparticipation at trial warrants relief under Cronic)
- Bell v. Cone, 535 U.S. 685 (clarifies that failure to test prosecution must be complete for presumed prejudice to apply)
- Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (defendant’s right to self-representation and the need for an adequate waiver inquiry)