2025 Ohio 2218
Ohio Ct. App.2025Background
- Kriston Price was convicted by a jury of voluntary manslaughter with firearm specifications after the shooting death of his roommate, Landon Rogers, having claimed self-defense.
- Counts of aggravated murder and murder were at issue; the jury ultimately convicted on the lesser-included offense of voluntary manslaughter.
- Price appealed, raising three assignments of error through appellate counsel, which were overruled by the Eighth District Court of Appeals and the Ohio Supreme Court declined further review.
- Price then sought to reopen his appeal under Ohio App.R. 26(B), arguing ineffective assistance of appellate counsel for failing to raise nine additional assignments of error.
- The trial court denied his application for reopening, finding no genuine issue of a colorable claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Denial of mistrial after improper opinion testimony | Testimony on sequence of shots was so prejudicial mistrial required | Curative instruction was sufficient | No ineffective assistance; curative instruction adequate |
| Failure to object to expert's (Jones) entrance/exit testimony | Testimony lacked proper foundation and bolstered State's case | Jones was qualified; testimony duplicative, not prejudicial | No ineffective assistance; no prejudice shown |
| Introduction of video showing Price in jail clothing | Showing Price in jail attire vitiated the presumption of innocence | Video context explained; jury not unfairly prejudiced | No ineffective assistance; context mitigated any risk |
| Exclusion of victim’s text messages to third-party | Texts were admissible as statements of intent under hearsay exception | Text too vague; not shown to be known to Price | No prejudice; exclusion not grounds for reopening |
| Failure to advise Price of right not to testify | Court erred by not explicitly informing Price of right | No such duty; responsibility lies with counsel | No error; no ineffective assistance |
| Failure to request lesser-included offense instructions | Counsel should have requested instructions on reckless/negligent homicide | Tactical decision to pursue self-defense | Strategic choice; no ineffective assistance |
| Failure to request complete self-defense instruction | Instruction should have clarified right to use force at home | Court gave appropriate instruction | Instruction given; no issue |
| Trial court’s voluntary manslaughter instruction | Not guilty/mistrial on higher charges precluded manslaughter verdict | Elements distinct; voluntary manslaughter instruction proper | Instruction correct; no effective appellate claim |
| Late amendment to reopening application | Delay justified by counsel’s workload & case complexity | Timeliness and procedure do not support late amendments | No good cause; even if considered, no prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (sets the standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Jones v. Barnes, 463 U.S. 745 (1983) (counsel need not raise every possible issue)
- State v. Deem, 40 Ohio St.3d 205 (establishes test for inferior degree offenses)
- State v. Shane, 63 Ohio St.3d 630 (voluntary manslaughter as inferior to murder under Ohio law)
- State v. Carter, 72 Ohio St.3d 545 (trial strategy generally not grounds for ineffective assistance)
- State v. Griffie, 74 Ohio St.3d 332 (record alone not sufficient to show ineffective assistance for omitted jury instruction)
- State v. Baker, 111 Ohio App.3d 313 (choosing not to request lesser-included offense instruction can be a reasonable strategy)
- State v. Knuff, 2024-Ohio-902 (mistrial required only if fairness is impossible)
- Estelle v. Williams, 425 U.S. 501 (trying defendant in jail attire not per se constitutional error if no objection)