State v. Plotts, 2011 Ohio 900

Indicted in 2009 on eight counts including aggravated arson, arson, and insurance fraud related to two fires at Plotts’ residence in April 2009.
Trial court conviction on all eight counts; counts merged for sentencing where appropriate.
Plotts argued plain error for admitted fire-scene physical evidence lacking a proper chain of custody; also alleged ineffective assistance of counsel.
Evidence included items gathered from the residence and testimony about who handled the evidence and when.
Jurisdiction is the Ohio Third Appellate District; the court reviews for plain error given lack of timely objection to evidence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the chain of custody for physical exhibits was established beyond reasonable doubt.	Plotts contends the State failed to prove an adequate chain of custody.	Plotts asserts substitution/tampering could have occurred due to gaps in custody.	No plain error; reasonable certainty of no substitution or tampering established.
Whether trial counsel provided effective assistance of counsel.	Plotts claims counsel failed to call experts, suggested conspiracy, and cross-examination flaws.	Counsel’s strategy and decisions were within the range of reasonable professional conduct.	No ineffective assistance; performance not prejudicial under Bradley/Waddy standards.

Columbus v. Taylor, 39 Ohio St.3d 162 (1988) (abuse-of-discretion standard for evidentiary rulings minus plain error when unobjected)
State v. Maurer, 15 Ohio St.3d 239 (1984) (establishing evidentiary admissibility and standard for plain error review)
State v. Coats, 2010-Ohio-4822 (Ohio 3d Dist.) (plain-error review where no objection to admission of evidence)
State v. Brown, 107 Ohio App.3d 194 (1995) (requirement of chain of custody for authentication; substantiation via reasonable certainty)
State v. Wilkins, 64 Ohio St.2d 382 (1980) (strict chain of custody not always required; substitution affects weight, not admissibility)
State v. Blevins, 36 Ohio App.3d 147 (1987) (breaks in chain go to weight, not admissibility, if reasonable certainty remains)
State v. Pierce, 2010-Ohio-478 (Ohio 3d Dist.) (presumption of competent representation; trial strategy considerations)
State v. Hoffman, 129 Ohio App.3d 403 (1998) (high deference to counsel’s strategic decisions)
State v. Nicholas, 66 Ohio St.3d 431 (1993) (strategic choice to rely on cross-examination)
State v. Thompson, 33 Ohio St.3d 1 (1987) (expert witness decisions treated as trial strategy)
State v. Brown, 7 Ohio St.3d 1 (1993) ((if used, multiple citations may apply))