State v. Pardon
2022 Ohio 663
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2022Background
- Victim Rachael Anderson was found bound, strangled, and stabbed in her apartment; defendant Anthony Pardon was indicted for aggravated murder and related offenses and tried in Feb. 2020.
- Investigative evidence: defendant's DNA on vaginal and binding swabs; cell‑phone and Google geolocation placing his phone near the apartment and at locations where the victim’s debit card was used; defendant’s sister admitted using the victim’s card and testified defendant gave it to her.
- A witness, Anthony Sleet, was interviewed by police (video recorded) saying a different man gave him the victim’s debit card; Sleet later died and was unavailable for trial.
- The prosecution played agreed portions of Sleet’s recorded interview and a prior photo‑array selection over no objection from defense counsel (defense expressly stipulated to the edited video portions).
- Jury convicted on all counts; penalty phase resulted in life without parole. On appeal, Pardon argued (1) admission of Sleet’s statement violated Evid.R. 804(B)(5) and the Confrontation Clause, and (2) counsel was ineffective for failing to object.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admission of Sleet interview (hearsay / Confrontation Clause) | State: admission was permitted and harmless; defense stipulated to portions; any objection waived; review is plain‑error only | Pardon: Sleet’s out‑of‑court testimonial statement was hearsay, inadmissible under Evid.R.804(B)(5) and Crawford; trial court erred | Court: No reversible error — defense invited/adopted admission and waived objections; plain‑error not shown given overwhelming other evidence |
| Ineffective assistance for failing to object to Sleet interview | State: counsel made a reasonable strategic choice to admit/use the interview; no deficient performance or prejudice under Strickland | Pardon: counsel unreasonably failed to object to highly prejudicial testimony; this undermined fairness | Court: Defense strategy was reasonable; even if deficient, no reasonable probability of different outcome — Strickland prongs not met |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (establishes two‑prong ineffective‑assistance standard)
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (U.S. 2004) (testimonial statements by absent witnesses trigger Confrontation Clause protections)
- Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (U.S. 2011) (apply Strickland with caution to failure‑to‑object claims)
- State v. Tench, 156 Ohio St.3d 85 (Ohio 2018) (Confrontation Clause applies to testimonial out‑of‑court statements; waiver/plain‑error principles)
- State v. Wolery, 46 Ohio St.2d 316 (Ohio 1976) (no plain error where failure to object was deliberate trial tactic)
- State v. Bradley, 42 Ohio St.3d 136 (Ohio 1989) (framework for evaluating ineffective‑assistance claims)
- State v. Dever, 64 Ohio St.3d 401 (Ohio 1992) (hearsay rule and Confrontation Clause protect similar but distinct values)