State v. Neu
2013 Ohio 616
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Neu was indicted on two counts of rape (sexual battery) involving his five-year-old daughter, with life-at-stake specifications.
- Neu agreed to a polygraph examination; a stipulation allowed admission of polygraph evidence under conditions, while preserving cross-examination rights.
- During the polygraph, Neu answered 'No' to questions about sexual acts with his daughter; the examiner opined 'Deception Indicated'.
- Post-test, Neu admitted to at least rubbing his daughter's vagina with his finger; he later replaced counsel and a new attorney filed evidentiary motions, including suppression of polygraph results.
- After plea negotiations, Neu pled guilty to two counts of sexual battery and was sentenced to a total term of 11 years; the trial court accepted the pleas.
- Neu appealed with an Anders brief filed by appellate counsel, and Neu filed a pro se brief raising ineffective-assistance challenges; the court found the appeal wholly frivolous and affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Polygraph stipulation effectiveness | Neu argues counsel failed to object to a defective stipulation. | Neu contends the stipulation rendered the plea involuntary by admitting inculpatory polygraph data. | Stipulation proper; no deficient performance; appeal frivolous. |
| Ineffective assistance re suppression motions | Neu argues counsel should have pursued suppression motions to invalidate evidence. | Neu claims failure to pursue suppression biased plea. | Plea waiver bars these claims; arguments frivolous. |
| Pro se arguments viability | Neu argues various extra-record claims and investigations support reversal. | Neu asserts ineffective assistance and other rights violations. | Pro se claims are frivolous and outside record. |
| Knowing, voluntary plea | Neu argues plea was not knowingly voluntary due to counsel's conduct. | Neu asserts ineffective assistance affected voluntariness. | Colloquy shows pleas were knowingly, voluntarily, intelligently entered. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Souel, 53 Ohio St.2d 123 (Ohio 1978) (polygraph admissibility conditions in criminal trials)
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (Sup. Ct. 1967) (court may withdraw and affirm when appeal is frivolous)
- Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (Sup. Ct. 1988) (full examination required when Anders brief filed)
- State v. Hamblin, 37 Ohio St.3d 153 (Ohio 1988) (ineffective assistance standard in Ohio)
- State v. Norman, 4th Dist. Nos. 08CA3059 & 08CA3066 (2009) (burden on defendant to prove ineffective assistance)
- State v. Spires, 4th Dist. No. 10CA10 (2011) (record limitations on direct appeal; non-record evidence not considered)
- State v. Taylor, 8th Dist. No. 97798 (2012) (appeal waiver of suppression-based claims)
- State v. Drummond, 111 Ohio St.3d 14 (2006) (ineffective assistance Prong analysis)
- State v. Cooper, 2010-Ohio-1983 (Ohio 2010) (plea voluntariness and counsel performance considerations)
- State v. Wise, 2009-Ohio-5264 (Ohio 2009) ( Anders framework and meritorious issues determination)