State v. Smith, 76 N.E.3d 551

Defendant Eric L. Smith was tried by jury and convicted of multiple felonies arising from two home invasions of victim David McCourt (Jan 3–4 and Mar 27, 2015): aggravated burglary, kidnapping, aggravated robbery (two counts), felonious assault, and two counts of weapons under disability, with multiple firearm and repeat-offender/forfeiture specifications.
First incident: McCourt bound with zip ties; $33,000 in cash and a Rolex stolen; victim described two masked assailants (one taller, one shorter) armed with a revolver and a semiautomatic with extended magazine.
Evidence connecting Smith: co-defendant Waddell implicated Smith as having provided the victim’s address and driving to pawn the Rolex; surveillance showed a cousin pawning the watch; Smith made large cash purchases shortly after the first incident and had $1,000 in $100 bills in his car; ski mask, gloves, flex ties, and an extended-magazine Glock were recovered near the scene of the second incident.
At the second incident McCourt was pistol-whipped; Smith, Waddell, and Tammy Wright were detained shortly after, and a Glock with extended magazine was found in Wright’s vehicle.
Smith appealed raising nine assignments of error challenging denial of a continuance, limitations on cross-examination, admission of other-acts evidence, ineffective assistance of counsel, sufficiency and weight of the evidence, and imposition of consecutive sentences. The appellate court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Smith)	Held
Denial of continuance	Court properly managed docket; no prejudice shown	Denial deprived Smith of due process and right to prepare (co-defendant allocuted day of trial)	Denial not an abuse of discretion; no prejudice; continuance denied properly
Limitation on cross-examination of victim re: illegal gambling	Limits were reasonable; victim’s gambling was explored on direct/cross	Court improperly curtailed impeachment and bias inquiry under Confrontation Clause	Any restriction was within trial court’s latitude and harmless; sufficient inquiry occurred
Admission of other-acts evidence (prior thefts)	Evidence admissible as rebuttal/curative (defense opened door to source of cash)	Admission violated Evid.R.404(B) and due process	Admission proper under 404(B) and ‘‘opening the door’’ doctrine; limiting instruction given; no unfair prejudice
Ineffective assistance based on counsel opening door to other-acts	Counsel’s strategic decisions were reasonable trial tactics; no prejudice	Counsel was ineffective for eliciting or permitting evidence of prior bad acts	Strickland not satisfied: tactical choices are deferred to counsel and no reasonable probability of different outcome shown

Ungar v. Sarafite, 376 U.S. 575 (U.S. 1964) (abuse-of-discretion standard for continuance denials)
Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14 (U.S. 1967) (right to compulsory process to call witnesses)
Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308 (U.S. 1974) (scope of confrontation/cross-examination to show bias)
Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673 (U.S. 1986) (harmless-error test for Confrontation Clause limits)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-prong ineffective-assistance test)
Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1979) (sufficiency standard—view evidence in light most favorable to prosecution)
State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (Ohio 1991) (circumstantial evidence has same probative value as direct evidence)
State v. Morris, 141 Ohio St.3d 399 (Ohio 2014) (framework for harmless-error analysis regarding Evid.R.404(B))
State v. Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d 209 (Ohio 2014) (requirements for imposing consecutive sentences under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4))