State v. Palacios
2017 Ohio 8674
Ohio Ct. App.2017Background
- Ashley Palacios was charged with misdemeanor domestic violence and child endangerment; she pleaded not guilty and the case was set for jury trial on May 25, 2016.
- The trial court journalized a pretrial order setting a jury trial and ordered the clerk to summon jurors; additional jury names were later pulled by court order.
- Palacios’s trial counsel failed to file a written jury demand within the 10-day window required by Crim.R. 23(A); Palacios filed a written demand 7 days before trial.
- The State objected to the late jury demand; the trial court found the demand untimely, denied the jury request, and tried the case to the bench, finding Palacios guilty.
- Palacios filed a motion for a new trial alleging ineffective assistance of counsel and that the court improperly refused a jury trial; the trial court denied the motion.
- On appeal the Sixth District reversed, holding the court abused its discretion by denying a new trial because the court itself had scheduled and prepared for a jury trial and the State suffered no prejudice from the untimely written demand.
Issues
| Issue | Palacios' Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether denial of a jury trial (Crim.R. 23(A) untimely demand) warranted new trial | Court and parties had treated case as jury trial; denial prejudiced Palacios despite late written demand | Crim.R. 23(A)’s 10-day written demand is mandatory; late filing is waiver | Reversed: new trial ordered because court had set and prepared case for jury; no prejudice to State from late demand |
| Whether the trial court should have inquired into competency of child victim | Palacios: trial court erred in not conducting competency inquiry due to victim’s age | State: no error asserted; trial court treated hearsay exception as applicable | Moot (appellate court declined to reach because reversal on jury issue) |
| Admissibility of pediatrician testimony recounting child’s statements (hearsay) | Palacios: testimonial hearsay admitted without adequate inquiry into circumstances | State: testimony falls within Evid.R. 803(4) hearsay exception | Moot (not decided on merits) |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to timely demand jury and other failures | Palacios: counsel’s deficient performance prevented jury trial and other trial preparation failures | State: ineffective assistance is not proper basis for new trial under Crim.R. 33; no prejudice shown | Moot (court reversed on jury-scheduling grounds; ineffective-assistance claim not reached) |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Schiebel, 55 Ohio St.3d 71 (1990) (standard of review for denial of a motion for new trial is abuse of discretion)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (1983) (definition of abuse of discretion)
- State v. Burton, 39 Ohio App.3d 151 (1988) (Crim.R. 23(A) deadline is mandatory to prevent delay and prejudice)
- State v. Edwards, 4 Ohio App.2d 261 (1966) (a timely jury demand or a court order setting a jury trial can render denial improper when defendant relied on it)