State v. Strong
2017 Ohio 859
Ohio Ct. App.2017Background
- Appellant Kyle W. Strong was indicted on four counts: burglary (R.C. 2911.12(A)(1)), attempted burglary (R.C. 2923.02(A) & 2911.12(A)(2)), tampering with evidence (R.C. 2921.12), and theft from the elderly (R.C. 2913.02).
- Police responded to a September 18, 2015 report: a 74‑year‑old victim woke to find two masked men who took medications, loose change, jewelry, cordless phones, and a box of frozen fudge pops.
- Officers located two men near 135 Gunther Street; one (Robert Gilbert) was detained, the other fled wearing a green baseball hat. Stolen items from the victim were recovered nearby.
- Gilbert initially told officers the other man was Strong; at trial Gilbert equivocated. A green baseball hat recovered where the second suspect fled yielded a single‑source DNA profile consistent with Strong.
- The defense moved for acquittal (Crim.R. 29) as to attempted burglary at 135 Gunther Street; motion denied. The jury convicted Strong on all counts. He was sentenced to an aggregate prison term (to run consecutively to an earlier term).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Was denial of Crim.R. 29 proper for attempted burglary at 135 Gunther St.? | State: evidence (Gilbert’s ID, officer observation, hat with Strong’s DNA) suffices to show presence, trespass, and intent to commit crime. | Strong: no proof he was at 135 Gunther, no owner testimony of lack of permission, no proof of criminal purpose. | Denial affirmed — evidence sufficient for a rational juror to find presence, trespass, and intent. |
| 2. Were convictions on other counts supported by sufficient evidence / against manifest weight? | State: identity established via Gilbert’s statements and DNA from the hat; circumstantial evidence ties Strong to the break‑ins. | Strong: victim and officer could not identify him at trial; Gilbert recanted identification. | Affirmed — sufficiency and manifest‑weight review support convictions; jury did not lose its way. |
| 3. Was trial counsel ineffective for missing the jury view and for not calling Strong to testify? | State: counsel’s performance did not prejudice Strong; jury view is not a "crucial stage," and decision whether defendant testifies is the defendant’s own. | Strong: counsel waived his presence at the jury view (prejudicial) and declined to call him to testify. | Denied — no Strickland prejudice shown for missing jury view; no coercion shown regarding defendant’s decision not to testify. |
Key Cases Cited
- Tenace v. Ohio, 109 Ohio St.3d 255 (standard for reviewing Crim.R. 29 sufficiency)
- Jenks v. Ohio, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (sufficiency review — evidence viewed in light most favorable to prosecution)
- Tyler v. Ohio, 50 Ohio St.3d 24 (jury view is not a crucial stage)
- Lang v. Ohio, 129 Ohio St.3d 512 (manifest‑weight standard and exceptional‑case test)
- Thompkins v. Ohio, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (manifest‑weight standard discussion)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (two‑prong ineffective assistance test)
- Mootispaw v. Ohio, 110 Ohio App.3d 566 (intent may be inferred from presence, companionship, and conduct)