State v. Stephenson
2013 Ohio 771
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Stephenson, age 68, was indicted on two counts of gross sexual imposition and kidnapping based on accusations by his home health aide, Morrison, then 26.
- The alleged incident occurred in early 2011; Morrison reported the conduct to West Union Police.
- Trial witnesses were Morrison and two law-enforcement investigators; Stephenson did not testify.
- The jury deliberated, indicated impasse, and the court gave a Howard deadlocked-jury instruction, then discharged them.
- A second Howard instruction was given the next day, after which the jury found him guilty on count one and not guilty on the others.
- Appellant timely appeals, challenging the Howard instruction deviation and the inclusion of a definition of “knowingly.”
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Howard charge deviation from verbatim language | Stephenson argues the modified Howard instruction violated State v. Howard | Stephenson claims the deviation could mislead or coerce jurors | No plain error; instructions were adequate despite not verbatim |
| Inclusion of the definition of “knowingly” | Stephenson contends the definition was unnecessary and possibly confusing | Stephenson argues it could mislead; elements did not include ‘knowingly’ | No plain error; complete charge viewed in context; still adequate |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Howard, 42 Ohio St.3d 18 (1989) (approval of the Howard deadlock instruction with cautions)
- State v. Andricks, 111 Ohio App.3d 93 (1996) (altered Howard language can be plain error if confusing)
- State v. Lopez, 90 Ohio App.3d 566 (1993) (illustrates proper Howard instruction considerations)
- State v. Clifton, 172 Ohio App.3d 286 (2007) (illustrates deviations from Howard language and analysis)