State v. Mohamed (Slip Opinion), 2017 Ohio 7468

Background

Defendant Shuaib Haji Mohamed, a taxi driver, was convicted by a jury of multiple felonies for sexual assaults and two counts of kidnapping against passenger J.K.; one kidnapping conviction was later reversed by the court of appeals.
After a bar night, J.K. rode with Mohamed; during the ride he made sexual comments, touched her, stopped on the interstate and attempted forced oral sex; she escaped at her ex‑boyfriend’s house distraught.
At trial defense counsel consistently argued complete innocence and attacked J.K.’s credibility, emphasizing opportunities she had to leave the cab and lack of medical treatment. Counsel did not request a jury instruction on the R.C. 2905.01(C)(1) safe‑place‑unharmed reduction.
The Eighth District held that “harm” in the safe‑place‑unharmed clause did not include psychological harm, found counsel ineffective for failing to request the instruction, and found plain error in the court’s failure to give it, remanding for a new trial on one kidnapping count.
The State appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court, which reversed the court of appeals: it held that “harm” includes psychological harm, but that counsel’s omission was reasonable trial strategy and the trial court committed no plain error. The matter was remanded to address a consecutive‑sentence claim the court of appeals had deemed moot.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether “harm” in R.C. 2905.01(C)(1) includes psychological harm	State: “harm” includes mental/psychological harm under plain meaning and legislative usage	Eighth Dist.: statute should be limited to physical harm; counting psychological harm would render statute meaningless	Held: “harm” encompasses both physical and psychological harm (plain meaning/dictionary and statutory context)
Whether defense counsel was ineffective for not requesting a safe‑place‑unharmed jury instruction	State: counsel’s omission was reasonable strategy to pursue total innocence and avoid opening door to evidence of psychological injury	Mohamed: failure to request instruction undermined fairness; counsel should have sought the lesser‑offense instruction	Held: counsel not ineffective; omission fell within reasonable trial strategy (Strickland/Bradley)
Whether the trial court committed plain error by not giving the instruction sua sponte	State: no plain error where counsel reasonably chose strategy and instruction was not requested	Mohamed: failure to instruct deprived jury of ability to consider reduced offense level	Held: no plain error; trial court’s omission not obvious error or outcome‑determinative
Remedy and procedural disposition	State: reverse appellate reversal and reinstate convictions; remand remaining moot issues	Mohamed: seek new trial on kidnapping counts	Held: Court reversed court of appeals, reinstated trial court judgment, remanded to court of appeals to consider consecutive‑sentence assignment the court of appeals had found moot

Key Cases Cited

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes two‑prong ineffective assistance standard)
State v. Bradley, 42 Ohio St.3d 136 (Ohio adoption of Strickland standard)
State v. Clayton, 62 Ohio St.2d 45 (tactical choices by counsel not necessarily ineffective)
State v. Carter, 72 Ohio St.3d 545 (presumption that counsel strategy may be reasonable)
State v. Keith, 79 Ohio St.3d 514 (mitigating/omitted evidence may be consistent with innocence defense)
State v. Barnes, 94 Ohio St.3d 21 (plain‑error standard articulation)
State v. Claytor, 61 Ohio St.3d 234 (no plain error where counsel pursued an alternative tactical defense)
State v. Long, 53 Ohio St.2d 91 (plain‑error cautionary standard)
United States v. Dominguez Benitez, 542 U.S. 74 (reasonable‑probability standard for prejudice affecting confidence in outcome)
State v. Rogers, 143 Ohio St.3d 385 (plain‑error/ineffective assistance comparison)