State v. Richter
2017 Ohio 1347
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- At 1:07 a.m. on Jan. 24, 2016, Patrolman Joshua Jones observed Joseph Richter weave, cross the fog line, and exhibit erratic signaling while driving on State Route 13 in Utica, Ohio; Jones initiated a traffic stop.
- On approach Jones detected a strong odor of alcohol; Richter and his wife (a passenger) were visibly intoxicated and Richter admitted to drinking.
- Jones (testifying he did not need another officer) administered field sobriety tests: he observed all six HGN clues, four of eight clues on additional tests, and two of four clues on the one‑leg stand; Richter was arrested for OVI.
- Richter indicated he would refuse chemical testing; Jones provided BMV 2255 and advised him that, given two prior OVI convictions (1999, 2001), he was mandated to submit; Richter refused to sign but the refusal was processed.
- After a jury trial Richter was convicted of OVI (R.C. 4511.19(A)(1)) and a marked lanes violation; he appealed, raising ineffective assistance for not calling his wife as a defense witness and a challenge to exclusion of questioning about the officer’s employment status.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ineffective assistance — failure to call passenger (wife) | State: trial strategy and record do not show prejudice; counsel’s choices were reasonable | Richter: counsel was ineffective for not calling Amanda Richter to corroborate refusal to perform field sobriety tests | Court: No ineffective assistance; defendant did not proffer what wife would have testified and failed to show reasonable probability of different outcome |
| Exclusion of cross‑examination about officer’s employment status | State: proposed testimony irrelevant to DUI issues | Richter: testimony about change in Patrolman Jones’s employment status was relevant and exclusion was harmful | Court: Trial court did not abuse discretion in sustaining relevance objection and excluding testimony |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two‑pronged ineffective assistance standard)
- State v. Bradley, 42 Ohio St.3d 136 (1989) (Ohio adoption of Strickland standard)
- State v. Calhoun, 86 Ohio St.3d 279 (1999) (defendant must present evidentiary material showing operative facts for ineffective assistance claim)
- State v. Griffie, 74 Ohio St.3d 332 (1996) (deference to trial strategy decisions)
- State v. Hymore, 9 Ohio St.2d 122 (1967) (admission/exclusion of evidence is within trial court’s discretion)
- State v. Sage, 31 Ohio St.3d 173 (1987) (standard for reviewing evidentiary rulings)