State v. Rizer, 2011 Ohio 5702

Paula Rizer was tried for murder with a firearm specification after shooting her husband, claiming battered-woman syndrome and self-defense.
A defense expert argued traumatic-memory issues; the State introduced a forensic-psychologist expert who addressed inconsistencies.
The trial court ruled on the admissibility of expert testimony, child-witness competency, jury instructions, and various financial sanctions.
Rizer’s convictions followed a second trial after the first trial resulted in a partial acquittal on the aggravated-murder charge.
The court issued a sentencing entry imposing restitution, costs, and confinement-related costs, later remanding on several financial sanctions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admission of State’s forensic-psychologist testimony	Rizer opened the door to Stinson by defense expert Fischer	State's expert should be excluded under self-incrimination concerns	Door opened; Stinson permitted; first assignment overruled.
Granddaughter’s competence to testify	Court erred in ruling granddaughter incompetent	Child unable to communicate about grandparents	Court did not abuse discretion; R.C. incompetent due to inability to communicate about subject.
Self-defense jury instruction	Instruction misstates law or is plain error	Instruction, viewed as a whole, is correct; invited error.	No plain error; instruction proper when read with the rest of charge.
Ineffective assistance of counsel	Counsel failed on multiple points (Stinson, manslaughter instruction, redaction)	Strategic choices, not deficient performance	Arguments fail; no deficient performance established; strategy reasonable.
Costs and restitution in sentencing	Court failed to notify on community service for nonpayment; restitution amount correct	Notifications required; restitution amount excessive given assets	Vacate certain costs of prosecution and reduce restitution to $9,200; remand for proper sentencing.

State v. Goff, 128 Ohio St.3d 169 (2010) (battered-woman syndrome admissibility to self-defense element; door-opening concept discussed)
State v. Nemeth, 82 Ohio St.3d 202 (1998) (recognizes battered-woman syndrome relevance; need for expert testimony)
State v. Koss, 49 Ohio St.3d 213 (1990) (memory and self-defense; proper use of expert testimony)
In re Miller, 63 Ohio St.3d 99 (1992) (opening door principle for admitting related testimony)
State v. Conway, 109 Ohio St.3d 412 (2006) (standard for when expert testimony may be used to explain psychological conditions)
State v. Shane, 63 Ohio St.3d 630 (1992) (words alone not usually sufficient provocation; context matters for self-defense)