State v. Minor
2016 Ohio 5492
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2016Background
- On June 24–25, 2014, A.B. and B.P. went to 125 North Harris Ave. to buy heroin; they were allegedly forced to strip, cavity‑searched, confined in a basement, and B.P. brutally beaten and sexually assaulted; a video from the house was recovered.
- Police executed a warrant at the house; physical evidence (broom handle, BB gun, belt, firearms, phones) and rape kits were collected; DNA testing excluded Minor from most usable samples.
- A.B. testified at trial identifying Minor and describing the assaults but admitted drug addiction, withdrawal, prior theft, and inconsistent statements; B.P. was not called during the State’s case because he was unavailable until after the State rested.
- The jury convicted Minor of five counts of felonious assault (merged), two counts of rape (relating to A.B.), and two counts of kidnapping; several other counts were dismissed by the State.
- At sentencing the court discredited B.P.’s pro‑defense testimony/affidavit, found Minor played a significant role, imposed consecutive terms totaling 38 years, and set forth the R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings in the oral and written orders (with a clerical error in the entry to be corrected nunc pro tunc).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency/manifest weight of evidence (felonious assault, rape, kidnapping) | State: forensic, medical, nurse, video, and A.B.’s testimony together permitted reasonable juror findings of guilt | Minor: A.B. was unreliable, confused, in withdrawal, made inconsistent statements, and DNA did not link him | Court: Evidence sufficient; convictions not against manifest weight given corroboration (injuries, hospital records, video, prior acquaintance) |
| Denial of continuance to interview key witness B.P. | State: trial court within discretion to deny interruption of ongoing jury trial; many prior continuances and logistical burdens | Minor: counsel needed time to interview B.P. whose potential testimony could affect trial strategy | Court: No abuse of discretion; short delay request amid multi‑defendant trial and prior continuances did not require interruption |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to present witnesses / locate B.P. | State: counsel employed an investigator; record lacks specific showing of deficient performance or prejudice under Strickland | Minor: counsel failed to call available witnesses or locate B.P., prejudicing defense | Court: Claims conclusory; no showing of what witnesses would say or that counsel’s efforts were deficient or prejudicial; Strickland not met |
| Consecutive sentences compliance with R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) | State: trial court made required findings on the record and in entry supporting consecutive terms | Minor: challenged sentencing as not following statute | Court: Findings were made orally and in writing (facially tracked statutory language); sentencing proper though clerical entry error to be corrected nunc pro tunc |
Key Cases Cited
- Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328 (2012) (distinguishes sufficiency and manifest‑weight standards)
- State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (1997) (explains manifest‑weight review)
- State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (1991) (sufficiency standard—view evidence in light most favorable to prosecution)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two‑prong ineffective assistance test)
- State v. Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d 209 (2014) (consecutive‑sentence findings must be made at sentencing and incorporated into the entry)
- Tibbs v. Florida, 457 U.S. 31 (1982) (double jeopardy distinction between sufficiency and weight reversals)