State v. Mohamed (Slip Opinion), 88 N.E.3d 935

Defendant Shuaib Haji Mohamed, a taxicab driver, was convicted by a jury of multiple felonies arising from the sexual assault of a fare (J.K.), including two kidnapping counts.
At trial J.K. testified Mohamed stopped the cab, attempted to force oral sex, and she escaped to her ex-boyfriend’s house distraught; defense attacked her credibility and argued she had opportunities to flee and was intoxicated.
The Eighth District Court of Appeals reversed one kidnapping conviction, concluding the victim was released in a “safe place unharmed” and treating psychological harm as irrelevant to that statutory term.
The State appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court, which confronted whether the statutory term “harm” in R.C. 2905.01(C)(1) includes psychological as well as physical harm and whether trial counsel was ineffective for not requesting a safe-place-unharmed jury instruction.
The Ohio Supreme Court held that “harm” includes psychological harm; but applying that correct meaning, it concluded defense counsel’s decision not to request the instruction was reasonable trial strategy and therefore not ineffective, and the trial court’s failure to give the unrequested instruction did not constitute plain error.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether "harm" in R.C. 2905.01(C)(1) includes psychological harm	State: "Harm"’s plain meaning includes mental/psychological injury	Mohamed: (as applied by court of appeals) psychological harm should be excluded; only physical harm counts	Held: "Harm" includes both physical and psychological harm (plain-meaning and statutory usage)
Whether failure to request a safe-place-unharmed instruction was ineffective assistance	State: counsel not ineffective because requesting it would undercut defense and open door to evidence of psychological harm	Mohamed: counsel ineffective for not requesting instruction, warranting new trial on kidnapping	Held: Counsel’s omission was reasonable trial strategy; not ineffective under Strickland/Bradley
Whether trial court’s failure to give the unrequested instruction was plain error	State: no plain error where omission flowed from reasonable defense strategy and did not affect outcome	Mohamed: trial court committed plain error by not instructing jury, requiring remand	Held: No plain error — omission not obvious error nor outcome-determinative
Remedy and disposition	State: reverse appellate reversal and reinstate convictions; remand for remaining issues	Mohamed: remand for new trial on kidnapping counts	Held: Reversed court of appeals; reinstated trial-court judgment and remanded to court of appeals to address consecutive-sentence assignment it had deemed moot

Bradley v. State, 42 Ohio St.3d 136 (Ohio 1989) (establishes two-part ineffective-assistance standard under Ohio law)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (federal standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
Clayton v. State, 62 Ohio St.2d 45 (Ohio 1980) (tactical choices do not automatically equal ineffective assistance)
Carter v. State, 72 Ohio St.3d 545 (Ohio 1995) (presumption that challenged actions may be sound trial strategy)
Keith v. State, 79 Ohio St.3d 514 (Ohio 1997) (failure to present mitigating evidence may be consistent with asserting complete innocence)
Barnes v. State, 94 Ohio St.3d 21 (Ohio 2002) (plain-error standard explained)
Long v. State, 53 Ohio St.2d 91 (Ohio 1978) (plain-error cautions and standard)
Dominguez Benitez v. United States, 542 U.S. 74 (U.S. 2004) (definition of "reasonable probability" of a different result in prejudice analysis)
Rogers v. State, 143 Ohio St.3d 385 (Ohio 2015) (plain-error notice with utmost caution)