State v. Smith
2017 Ohio 7540
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Dorothy Smith (defendant) went to her son Anthony's estranged partner Victoria's home the day after Victoria and the children moved out; the garage was open.
- Victoria found Dorothy in the attached garage; Victoria told Dorothy to leave and a physical struggle over the interior garage door ensued. Victoria retreated and called 9-1-1.
- Dorothy followed into the kitchen, continued demanding Anthony’s property; Victoria slapped Dorothy and then pushed her out toward the garage. Dorothy waited in her car and was arrested.
- A grand jury indicted Dorothy for one count of trespass in a habitation (R.C. 2911.12(B)); at trial the state played a police dash-camera of Dorothy and called Victoria and officers; Dorothy presented no evidence.
- The jury found Dorothy guilty; she appealed raising insufficiency/manifest-weight, prosecutorial misconduct, and ineffective-assistance claims. The appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence was sufficient / conviction against manifest weight (force element) | State: Dorothy used force to enter/remain (pushing interior door; resisting ejection) so R.C. 2911.12(B) satisfied | Dorothy: entry was through an open garage without force, so no force/stealth/deception required for trespass in a habitation | Affirmed: any force to enter or remain suffices; lawful garage entry can become trespass when force used to enter closed interior and when told to leave but resisted |
| Proper construction of “trespass” in R.C. 2911.12 | State: R.C. 2911.12 refers to R.C. 2911.21 definition of trespass | Dorothy: disputed applying R.C. 2911.21 to R.C. 2911.12 | Held: R.C. 2911.10 ties trespass element to R.C. 2911.21; argument meritless |
| Prosecutorial misconduct (voir dire & closing) | State: prosecutor’s remarks accurately characterized law and evidence; voir dire anecdote about juror “comfort” was imprecise but cured by court instructions | Dorothy: prosecutor misstated reasonable-doubt standard, appealed to emotion, bolstered witness, and misstated force law | Held: comments about force and credibility were proper; voir dire remark about “comfort” was improper but not plain error given correct jury instructions; no reversal |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel (failure to call Dorothy/testify; failure to object) | State: counsel’s choices were trial strategy; dash-cam provided Dorothy’s account; objections to prosecutor not clearly required or would not have changed outcome | Dorothy: counsel’s failure deprived her of chance to present calmer testimony and to preserve objections | Held: no deficient performance or prejudice shown; decision whether defendant testifies is strategic; no showing outcome would differ |
Key Cases Cited
- Jenks v. Ohio, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (sets Jackson/Jenks sufficiency-of-evidence standard)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes two-prong ineffective-assistance standard)
- Kirkland v. Ohio, 140 Ohio St.3d 73 (deference to jury on credibility and weight of evidence)
- Elmore v. Ohio, 111 Ohio St.3d 515 (explains standard for prosecutorial-misconduct reversal)