State v. Pinckney, 2017 Ohio 2836

Defendant Joseph Pinckney was tried in Akron Municipal Court and convicted by a jury of drag racing and driving under suspension; he does not contest minor misdemeanor convictions.
Officers observed two vehicles racing side-by-side for approximately one mile and followed them into a plaza; they stopped the Chrysler 300 and saw Pinckney exit the driver’s seat and move away from the car.
Pinckney claimed he was a passenger and later said he had climbed from the back seat into the front seat; he stipulated his license was suspended.
During deliberations (after ~85 minutes), the jury reported seven had reached a verdict but one would not budge; the trial court read a Howard supplemental deadlock instruction and then (improperly, the court concluded) added Martens language asking whether further deliberations could produce a verdict.
The jury briefly returned “no” to the court’s question, then after additional direction deliberated further and returned unanimous guilty verdicts; the court polled the jurors to confirm.
Pinckney appealed arguing (1) the post-deadlock instructions were confusing and coercive and (2) the convictions were against the manifest weight of the evidence.

Issue	Pinckney's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether supplemental jury instructions were confusing/coercive	Trial court gave confusing Howard/Martens mix and conveyed frustration, coercing verdict	Instructions were appropriate; counsel did not object; no coercion shown	Court: Instructions were confusing and Martens given prematurely, but not plain error; no reversal
Standard of review for unpreserved instruction objection	Court should apply abuse of discretion because Pinckney personally objected	Counsel did not object; Crim.R. 30 requires timely, specific objection; review for plain error	Court: Plain-error standard applies
Whether Martens instruction may be given with Howard instruction	Martens was inconsistent with Howard and may be premature	Trial court testified it sought to give both; parties approved initial reading	Court: Martens and Howard have different goals; giving both together can confuse; Martens was premature here
Whether convictions were against the manifest weight of the evidence	Pinckney claimed he was not driving; evidence unreliable	Officers saw the race, never lost sight of Chrysler 300, saw Pinckney exit driver seat; Pinckney’s story changed	Court: Weight of evidence supports convictions; not a manifest miscarriage of justice

State v. Howard, 42 Ohio St.3d 18 (1989) (approves balanced supplemental charge to encourage a verdict if it can be conscientiously reached)
State v. Martens, 90 Ohio App.3d 338 (1993) (permits instruction focusing jurors on whether any verdict can be reached through further deliberations)
State v. Thompson, 33 Ohio St.3d 1 (1987) (no right to hybrid representation; counsel and pro se rights are independent)
State v. Cunningham, 105 Ohio St.3d 197 (2004) (an erroneous jury instruction is plain error only if outcome clearly would have been otherwise)
State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (1997) (standard for manifest-weight review)
State v. Otten, 33 Ohio App.3d 339 (1986) (appellate review framework for manifest-weight claims)
Tibbs v. Florida, 457 U.S. 31 (1982) (appellate court acts as thirteenth juror in manifest-weight review)