State v. Strong
2015 Ohio 169
Ohio Ct. App.2015Background
- On June 11, 2013 Dana Strong was indicted on two counts of felonious assault, two counts of aggravated robbery, and one count of theft arising from a June 1, 2013 incident at a thrift store. A security guard, Carlos Thompson, was cut and required 19 stitches.
- Security-camera footage showed Strong make deliberate slashing motions with a knife at Thompson; Strong testified he brandished the knife to stop Thompson’s advance, claiming Thompson was “a loose cannon.”
- The jury convicted Strong of both counts of felonious assault and acquitted him on the remaining counts; the court merged the assault counts and imposed two years’ imprisonment.
- Strong appealed, raising (1) failure to instruct the jury on the lesser-included offense of simple assault (R.C. 2903.13(B)), (2) a Batson challenge alleging race-based peremptory strikes, and (3) a third assignment later deemed moot.
- The appellate majority affirmed that no lesser-included instruction was required but found the prosecutor’s peremptory strike of an African‑American venireperson to be insufficiently justified and the trial court’s acceptance of the strike clearly erroneous, warranting reversal and remand for a new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred by not giving a lesser-included instruction for simple assault (recklessness vs. knowingly) | State: Evidence shows deliberate, knowing knife slashes; no reasonable view supports recklessness. | Strong: Jury could have found recklessness, so instruction required. | Held: No instruction required; evidence showed knowing conduct, not mere recklessness. |
| Whether the prosecutor impermissibly used a peremptory strike on an African‑American venireperson (Batson claim) | State: Strike was race-neutral — juror’s wide‑eyed/‘thousand‑yard stare’ suggested inattentiveness. | Strong: Strike was pretextual; juror answered voir dire appropriately and court had not observed inattentiveness. | Held: Sustained Batson challenge — prosecutor’s reason was dubious, record not developed, and trial court’s acceptance clearly erroneous; reversal required. |
| Whether the panel’s low percentage of African‑American jurors warranted relief | State: Panel composition was not the state’s responsibility and one strike alone does not infer discrimination. | Strong: Panel nonrepresentative and state’s strike aggravated the problem. | Held: Panel composition noted but relief granted based on the improper peremptory strike rather than panel makeup alone. |
| Whether any remaining assignments require disposition | State: — | Strong: Third assignment raised on appeal. | Held: Third assignment of error rendered moot by disposition; proceedings remanded for new jury selection and trial. |
Key Cases Cited
- Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986) (Equal Protection prohibits race‑based peremptory challenges)
- Purkett v. Elem, 514 U.S. 765 (1995) (prosecutor’s explanation need not meet standard for challenge for cause)
- Miller‑El v. Dretke, 545 U.S. 231 (2005) (failure to develop record on prosecutor’s stated reason suggests pretext)
- Snyder v. Louisiana, 552 U.S. 472 (2008) (demeanor‑based explanations require support in the record; reviewing courts should not defer if record contradicts prosecutor’s reason)
- Patton v. Mississippi, 332 U.S. 463 (1947) (remedy for unconstitutional jury selection is a new trial)
- State v. Hernandez, 63 Ohio St.3d 577 (1992) (review of Batson claims generally deferred to trial court unless clearly erroneous)