State v. Robinson, 2022 Ohio 2896

Background

Robinson dated victim Jonathan Howard; they broke up but remained in contact. Howard later dated Madeline Moorehead.
Beginning Sept.–Oct. 2020 Robinson allegedly threatened and damaged Howard’s and Moorehead’s property (broken windows, attempted vehicle assault, threatening calls); a recorded call on Oct. 24 was played at trial.
On Oct. 12 Moorehead’s car was set on fire; she and Howard reported prior threats but did not personally see the arsonist.
On Nov. 22 Moorehead’s Ring camera captured an explosion after she saw Robinson banging on Howard’s car windows, make eye contact with Robinson, fire a warning shot, then observed Robinson throw a Molotov cocktail at Howard’s parked vehicle; the assailant fled in another car.
Investigators recovered a bottle and paper towel testing positive for gasoline; Robinson was indicted for fourth-degree felony arson, convicted by a jury, and sentenced to community control.
On appeal Robinson raised four assignments: (1) improper admission of other-acts evidence; (2) conviction against the manifest weight; (3) improper expert opinion/admissibility; and (4) ineffective assistance of counsel.

Issues

Issue	State's Argument	Robinson's Argument	Held
Admissibility of other-acts evidence (motion in limine)	Evidence showed modus operandi/identity; probative value outweighed prejudice	Evidence was propensity evidence; October 12 fire lacked direct observation and provoked inference-stacking	No plain error: evidence admissible under Evid.R.404(B)/R.C.2945.59 for identity/motive; limiting instruction given
Manifest weight of the evidence	Jury reasonably credited eyewitness and circumstantial evidence identifying Robinson	Robinson presented alibi (overnight at friend’s) and employment records; verdict against weight	No miscarriage of justice; verdict not against manifest weight; credibility resolved for State
Expert testimony (Fire Investigator Cosme)	Cosme qualified by training/experience; opinion that fires were arson admissible under Evid.R.702	Robinson argues expert opinion lacked "reasonable degree of scientific certainty" and state never formally moved to designate him as expert	No plain error: Cosme’s background supported expert testimony; failure to use specific formal designation/phrasing not fatal
Ineffective assistance of counsel	Counsel’s choices were reasonable; objections would have been futile and evidence was admissible	Counsel failed to object to Cosme, to hearsay aspects of phone-call testimony, and failed to review a prior fire report	Claim fails: performance not shown deficient or prejudicial; objections would likely be futile; phone-call evidence not hearsay; counsel used the report in cross-examination

Key Cases Cited

State v. Maurer, 15 Ohio St.3d 239 (1984) (motion in limine alone does not preserve error; objections at trial required)
State v. Williams, 134 Ohio St.3d 521 (2012) (three-part test for admissibility of other-acts evidence under Evid.R.404(B))
State v. Hartman, 161 Ohio St.3d 214 (2020) (modus operandi evidence admissible for identity only when crimes share a distinctive, one-of-a-kind modus)
State v. Worley, 164 Ohio St.3d 589 (2021) (slight differences between acts do not bar modus operandi evidence if identifiable)
State v. Tench, 156 Ohio St.3d 85 (2018) (plain error standard explained)
State v. Barnes, 94 Ohio St.3d 21 (2002) (plain error framework)
State v. Frazier, 115 Ohio St.3d 139 (2007) (failure to object waives error and triggers plain-error review)
State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (1997) (standard for manifest-weight review)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
State v. Bradley, 42 Ohio St.3d 136 (1989) (Ohio adoption of Strickland test)