State v. Raider
2017 Ohio 7788
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- In October 2013 Brandon Smith was shot in the head at home and died; housemate Ryan Raider admitted firing the gun but said it discharged accidentally when dropped. Raider was indicted for aggravated murder, murder, and felonious assault with firearm specifications and tried by jury.
- State's theory: Raider intentionally shot Smith to pursue a relationship with E.M.; evidence included a close-range wound, DNA and GSR on the gun, a casing on the bed, and testimony undermining Raider's account of being in the doorway when the weapon fired.
- Defense theory: the shooting was an accidental discharge when Raider dropped his Sig Sauer pistol while standing in the doorway; defense offered witnesses about the gun's trigger pull and testing on similar firearms and argued absence of malice.
- Forensics: autopsy found stippling, soot/embedded particles and a very close-range entry wound; BCI matched bullet fragments to the Sig Sauer; DNA from Smith on the trigger and gun; gun forensic expert testified the pistol would not fire unless the trigger was pulled absent a mechanical defect.
- Jury convicted Raider of murder (merged counts) and firearm specification; trial court sentenced him to 15 years to life plus a 3-year firearm spec term. Raider appealed raising ineffective assistance, prosecutorial misconduct, and erroneous jury instruction claims.
Issues
| Issue | Raider's Argument (Defendant) | State's Argument (Prosecutor) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Ineffective assistance for failure to request lesser-included instruction and other trial omissions | Trial counsel should have requested reckless-homicide instruction, objected to various prejudicial evidence, and sought curative instructions; failures prejudiced defense | Counsel's choices were reasonable tactical decisions; many challenged items were admissible or unobjected evidence would not change outcome | Reversed? No — denied. Court found counsel's performance within reasonable trial strategy and no prejudice under Strickland standard. |
| 2. Prosecutorial misconduct for asking defense expert about undisclosed State tests ("dropped Sig Sauer 14 times") | Prosecutor's question interjected impermissible, unproven evidence that the gun cannot discharge when dropped, depriving Raider of fair trial | The isolated question, viewed in context of the whole trial, did not prejudice substantial rights because other evidence supported conviction and related queries were unchallenged | Held against Raider: no reversible misconduct; no prejudice shown. Dissent would have found prejudice. |
| 3. Trial court refused requested jury language that defendant had no burden to prove accident | Raider argued the court should have added explicit sentence that he had no obligation to prove accident | Court pointed to general instructions that the State must prove every element beyond a reasonable doubt and the accident definition given | Held: No abuse of discretion; existing instructions adequately covered burden allocation. |
| 4. Admissibility of other-acts and prejudice (e.g., BB gun incidents and statements) | Such testimony was unfairly prejudicial and showed propensity rather than probative value regarding accident | State relied on Evid.R. 404(B) to show other acts evidence relevant to absence of mistake or accident; probative value not substantially outweighed by prejudice | Held: Admission was not shown to create ineffective assistance or reversible error; failure to object was reasonable trial strategy in context. |
Key Cases Cited
- Reynolds v. State, 80 Ohio St.3d 670 (1998) (sets out Strickland standard application in Ohio for ineffective assistance claims)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance: deficient performance and prejudice)
- Keith v. State, 79 Ohio St.3d 514 (1997) (discusses prejudice prong and counsel performance evaluation)
- Sowell v. State, 148 Ohio St.3d 554 (2016) (trial court need not give requested instruction verbatim if general charge covers legal principles)
- State v. Smith, 14 Ohio St.3d 13 (1984) (standard for reversing on prosecutorial misconduct requires showing prejudice to substantial rights)
- Cepec v. State, 149 Ohio St.3d 438 (2016) (failure to object alone does not automatically establish ineffective assistance)