State v. Smith
2020 Ohio 5119
Ohio Ct. App.2020Background
- On December 9, 2018, Dale W. Smith and the victim, A.Z., had an altercation outside Smith’s car; A.Z. sustained facial injuries (nasal fracture, contusion) and was taken to the hospital.
- Smith admitted at trial that he placed A.Z. in a chokehold and punched her multiple times; he also told deputies he had “smacked the shit out of” her.
- Smith was indicted for felonious assault (second-degree felony) and misdemeanor domestic violence; jury convicted him of felonious assault and acquitted on domestic violence; trial court sentenced Smith to five years in prison.
- Before trial Smith sought to offer Dr. David Connell’s April 2019 evaluation of A.Z. (finding global and short-term memory impairment) to impeach A.Z. under Evid.R. 616(B); the court excluded the testimony and limited certain cross-examination about medications.
- Smith also challenges his counsel’s agreement to a self-defense jury instruction based on the pre-amendment version of R.C. 2901.05 after the statute was amended (March 28, 2019) to shift the burden on self-defense.
- The court considered (1) whether exclusion of memory-evidence and limits on cross-examination were reversible error, and (2) whether counsel rendered ineffective assistance by agreeing to the pre-amendment jury instruction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of Dr. Connell’s opinion about A.Z.’s memory (Evid.R. 616(B)) | State: testimony would confuse/mislead jury and improperly attack competency; exclusion proper under Evid.R.403 | Smith: Dr. Connell’s report impeaches A.Z.’s ability to remember and is admissible extrinsic evidence under Evid.R.616(B) | Exclusion not reversible: testimony either irrelevant to alleged perjury or cumulative of A.Z.’s own admissions; any error harmless given Smith’s admissions and other evidence |
| Limitation on cross-examining A.Z. about medications | State: questions speculative and prejudicial | Smith: medication use may explain memory problems and impeach credibility | Limitation harmless: A.Z. admitted longstanding memory deficits at trial and Smith failed to show prejudice |
| Ineffective assistance for agreeing to pre‑amendment self‑defense instruction | State: instruction use was tactical; no prejudice | Smith: counsel deficient because amended R.C. 2901.05 shifted burden to prosecution and applied to his trial | Counsel deficient for using pre‑amendment instruction, but no prejudice because evidence did not "tend to support" self‑defense under Melchior standard |
| Retroactivity/applicability of amended R.C. 2901.05 | State (and many cases): amendment not applied retroactively to cases where offense and trial occurred before amendment | Smith: trial occurred after amendment, so he should have benefit of amended statute | Court: amended R.C. 2901.05 applies prospectively to trials held on or after March 28, 2019; here trial was after amendment, so amended law applied, but lack of evidence supporting self‑defense meant no prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Hymore, 9 Ohio St.2d 122 (1967) (trial court has broad discretion to admit or exclude evidence)
- State v. Adams, 62 Ohio St.2d 151 (1980) (definition of "abuse of discretion")
- Turner v. Turner, 67 Ohio St.3d 337 (1993) (Evid.R.616(B) relates to credibility, not competency)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two‑prong ineffective assistance standard)
- State v. Perez, 124 Ohio St.3d 122 (2009) (Ohio application of Strickland/Bradley test)
- State v. Melchior, 56 Ohio St.2d 15 (1978) (standard for sufficiency of evidence to require an affirmative‑defense instruction)