State v. Redding, 2019 Ohio 5302

Defendant Anthony W. Redding and victim S.S. were in a three‑year relationship; on Feb. 17, 2018 Redding struck S.S. in the face, causing the loss of her left eye (serious physical harm).
Redding claimed self‑defense; he had a prior felonious‑assault conviction (2008).
Indicted for felonious assault (R.C. 2903.11(A)(1)), with a repeat‑violent‑offender specification; tried to a jury and convicted; specification found true.
Sentenced to an aggregate 18 years (8 years on count + 10 years on repeat‑violent‑offender specification), and appealed by delayed leave.
On appeal Redding raised three assignments: (1) trial counsel ineffective for not objecting to testimony implying prior arrests/criminal history; (2) counsel ineffective for not objecting to testimony that Redding vandalized S.S.’s door with profane words; (3) cumulative‑error claim based on the foregoing.
The court assumed arguendo some evidence might have been inadmissible but held Redding could not show prejudice because he could not have proven self‑defense (non‑deadly force) given the serious physical harm inflicted.

Issue	State's Argument	Redding's Argument	Held
Admission of testimony suggesting prior arrests/criminal history	Evidence was either admissible for a non‑propensity purpose or harmless; any error did not prejudice outcome	Trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to inadmissible, prejudicial evidence implying criminal history	Even if inadmissible, no reasonable probability of a different outcome; counsel not ineffective because defendant could not have established self‑defense given the serious harm caused
Admission of testimony that Redding scratched profane words into victim's door	Evidence was relevant to motive/plan or harmless; any failure to object did not affect verdict	Trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to irrelevant and prejudicial testimony about door vandalism	Same as above: assuming inadmissible, no prejudice because self‑defense failed as a matter of proof; counsel not ineffective
Cumulative error from the alleged evidentiary errors	No cumulative prejudice because the alleged errors did not occur or were harmless	Combined effect of the errors deprived Redding of a fair trial	No cumulative error: since no prejudicial errors found, conviction affirmed

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes federal ineffective assistance standard)
State v. Bradley, 42 Ohio St.3d 136 (Ohio standard for ineffective assistance review)
State v. Kirkland, 140 Ohio St.3d 73 (standards for admitting other‑acts evidence under Evid.R. 404(B) and balancing under Evid.R. 401/403)
State v. Williams, 134 Ohio St.3d 521 (probative vs. prejudicial analysis for other‑acts evidence)
State v. Lytle, 48 Ohio St.2d 391 (guidance on prejudice and counsel duties)
State v. Campbell, 69 Ohio St.3d 38 (explains discretion to refrain from disruptive objections and tactical considerations)