State v. Montgomery, 2019 Ohio 5178

Victim A.B., acquainted with Montgomery for about 10 years, stayed overnight at her father's house where Montgomery also lived.
In the early morning of March 15, 2018, A.B. alleges Montgomery struck her, restrained her (basement and blocked bathroom), forced her to shower, and raped her twice; she later reported to 911 and underwent a SANE exam.
Hospital photos and nurse testimony documented facial injuries; police recovered a bloody tissue from the bathroom trash; DNA from vaginal swabs matched Montgomery.
Montgomery was indicted for kidnapping and rape, each with repeat violent offender specifications; he maintained the sex was consensual and introduced witnesses to that effect.
A jury convicted Montgomery of kidnapping and rape (acquitted on the kidnapping sexual-motivation specification); the trial court found the repeat violent offender specification true and imposed concurrent ten-year terms.
Montgomery appealed, raising (1) denial of a fair trial because the victim sat at counsel table as the State’s designated representative, (2) sufficiency/manifest weight challenges, and (3) ineffective assistance of counsel.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Montgomery)	Held
Whether allowing the alleged victim to sit at counsel table as the State’s designated representative denied a fair trial	Marsy’s Law and R.C. allow victim presence; exclusion not warranted here	Presence prejudiced Montgomery’s right to a fair trial	Court: Victim’s presence authorized by Ohio Constitution/statute; defendant must show particularized prejudice; none shown (overruled)
Whether convictions were supported by sufficient evidence and not against the manifest weight	Evidence (victim testimony, injuries, bloody tissue, DNA match) supports kidnapping and rape	Victim lacked credibility; prior consensual relationship; inconsistent statements and lack of blood trail	Court: Evidence sufficient; jury did not lose its way in crediting victim (overruled)
Whether trial counsel was ineffective for not inspecting discovery evidence and for courtroom conduct	Counsel’s performance did not fall below objective standard or change outcome	Counsel failed to review clothing evidence and acted hostility that prejudiced jury	Court: Presumption of competence; failure to inspect clothing not shown to be prejudicial; admonishments were outside jury’s presence; no Strickland prejudice shown (overruled)

State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (Ohio 1997) (sets Ohio manifest-weight standard)
State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (Ohio 1991) (defines sufficiency-of-the-evidence standard)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-prong ineffective-assistance test)
State v. Hamblin, 37 Ohio St.3d 153 (Ohio 1988) (presumption of competence for licensed attorneys)
State v. Bradley, 42 Ohio St.3d 136 (Ohio 1989) (applies Strickland in Ohio; prejudice and performance analysis)
State v. Martin, 20 Ohio App.3d 172 (Ohio Ct. App. 1983) (quoted standard that appellate court acts as thirteenth juror in weight review)