State v. Roy
2015 Ohio 4959
Ohio Ct. App.2015Background
- Jamar N. Roy was indicted for felonious assault (R.C. 2903.11) and misdemeanor assault (R.C. 2903.13) arising from an altercation on June 16, 2014, in which Roy struck Heidi West (pregnant) and her sister Kortney West; Kortney suffered severe facial injuries requiring surgery.
- Witnesses across the street observed Roy strike both women and flee; Roy testified he hit Kortney only after she pushed him and "flicked" a lit cigarette in his face and denied hitting Heidi.
- At trial Roy requested a jury instruction for the lesser/inferior offense of aggravated assault (sudden passion/sudden fit of rage provoked by the victim); the court denied the instruction.
- Roy's counsel stipulated that Kortney suffered serious physical harm (to avoid medical testimony); photographs of Kortney’s injuries were nevertheless shown to the jury.
- The jury convicted Roy of felonious assault and misdemeanor assault; he was sentenced to five years and six months to run concurrently. Roy appealed raising three assignments of error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred by refusing to instruct on aggravated assault as an inferior degree offense | State: evidence did not support serious provocation or sudden passion, so no instruction required | Roy: evidence (cigarette flick, push) supported serious provocation and warranted aggravated assault instruction | Court: No error—objective standard not met; cigarette flick (uncorroborated) insufficient as a matter of law and Roy’s rage was directed at a third party, Haley, not the victims |
| Whether trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by stipulating that Kortney suffered serious physical harm | State: stipulation was trial strategy to avoid doctor testimony; counsel’s decisions fall within reasonable professional judgment | Roy: stipulation prejudiced the defense and affected outcome | Court: No ineffective assistance—stipulation was reasonable strategy and Roy failed to show prejudice or that outcome would differ |
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by admitting photographs of Kortney after stipulation of serious physical harm | State: photos were probative and not gruesome; stipulation does not automatically bar photos | Roy: photos were unduly prejudicial given the stipulation | Court: No abuse of discretion—court applied Evid.R. 403 balancing, found photos probative and not overly prejudicial |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Deem, 40 Ohio St.3d 205 (Ohio 1988) (defines inferior-degree offense and explains serious provocation standard)
- State v. Shane, 63 Ohio St.3d 630 (Ohio 1992) (two-prong objective/subjective test for sudden passion/sudden fit of rage)
- State v. Rhodes, 63 Ohio St.3d 613 (Ohio 1992) (burden on defendant to persuade factfinder of mitigating circumstances for inferior offense)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (Ohio 1983) (abuse of discretion standard)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- State v. Campbell, 90 Ohio St.3d 320 (Ohio 2000) (stipulation to injury does not automatically render photographs inadmissible)
- State v. Maurer, 15 Ohio St.3d 239 (Ohio 1984) (photographic evidence admissibility principles)