State v. Proffitt
2017 Ohio 1236
Ohio Ct. App.2017Background
- Wendell Proffitt was charged with two misdemeanor domestic-violence counts based on incidents on Jan. 11, 2016 and Mar. 26, 2016; alleged victim was his wife, Jennifer.
- Jennifer wrote two police statement forms describing scratching/choking (Jan.) and a death threat plus a broken TV (Mar.); both statements were in her handwriting and signed with a printed line stating the statements were true when made.
- At bench trial Jennifer testified she did not remember the incidents and was uncertain the written statements reflected what happened; the state had Jennifer read both written statements into the record under Evid.R. 803(5) (recorded recollection). Defense counsel did not object and also assented to admitting the statements as exhibits.
- Police observed scratch marks on Jennifer’s face after the Jan. incident; officer had no independent knowledge of how the marks were caused.
- The trial court found Jennifer’s in-court testimony not credible and expressly relied on the written statements as truthful and dispositive; Proffitt was found guilty on both counts.
- On appeal the Twelfth District reversed and remanded, holding defense counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to object to admission of the statements under Evid.R. 803(5), and accordingly did not reach the manifest-weight claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Was counsel ineffective for failing to object to admission of Jennifer’s written statements? | State: trial relied on admissible evidence; counsel’s overall strategy justified not objecting. | Proffitt: counsel was deficient for not objecting to inadmissible hearsay; prejudice because statements were dispositive. | Court: Yes. Failure to object fell below objective standard and was prejudicial; Strickland met — convictions reversed and remanded. |
| 2) Were the written statements admissible under Evid.R. 803(5) (recorded recollection)? | State: foundational elements (lack of present recollection; statements made near the event; signed and represented as true) satisfied admission. | Proffitt: witness did not affirm that statements correctly reflected her prior knowledge; foundational testimony lacking. | Court: No. The witness did not provide the affirmative testimony required to show the record correctly reflected her prior knowledge; statements did not meet Evid.R. 803(5) for admission as substantive evidence. |
| 3) Was admission of the statements an abuse of discretion by the trial court? | State: trial court evaluated credibility and demeanor and properly exercised discretion in admitting statements. | Proffitt: trial court erred in admitting hearsay without proper Evid.R. 803(5) foundation. | Court: Did not decide abuse of discretion independently because defense failed to object; focus was on ineffective assistance; second assignment overruled as waived (no plain-error claim). |
| 4) Are the convictions against the manifest weight of the evidence? | State: evidence (statements + scratches/circumstances) supported verdict. | Proffitt: convictions rest on inadmissible, uncorroborated hearsay. | Court: Moot after finding ineffective assistance; did not decide manifest-weight claim. |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-prong standard for ineffective assistance of counsel: deficient performance and prejudice)
- State v. Scott, 31 Ohio St.2d 1 (Ohio 1972) (elements for recorded-recollection hearsay exception)
- City of Dayton v. Combs, 94 Ohio App.3d 291 (Ohio Ct. App. 1993) (discussing sufficiency of foundation for recorded recollection exception)
- State v. Eubank, 60 Ohio St.2d 183 (Ohio 1979) (bench-trial presumption that judge considers only competent evidence)