State v. Taylor
2013 Ohio 186
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Taylor was indicted for multiple murders, felonious assaults, weapons under disability, and discharging a firearm near premises in 2008.
- Pretrial suppression motions were filed; most were overruled with limited witness condition.
- Trial yielded guilty verdicts on most counts; a bench trial found the weapon-under-disability count guilty.
- The incident occurred December 7, 2007, with Taylor allegedly firing at Jerod Bryson after a drug-money dispute.
- Eyewitness Tamlyn described the scene and jacket color; Brown testified as a runner and eyewitness.
- Exhibit 46, a coat, was seized from Taylor’s mother and later linked to the defendant; jacket trial occurred.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ineffective assistance of counsel | Counsel failed to hire an expert on crack-cocaine memory effects and memory reliability. | Record shows strategy; no prejudice from lack of expert; eyewitness consistency supports verdict. | No ineffective assistance; no prejudice established. |
| Denial of trying on Exhibit 46 denied fairness | Court abused discretion by not allowing coat to be tried on in presence of jury. | Coat size change over time makes trial on coat less relevant; no reversible error. | No reversible error; waiver and later airing of issue support affirmed. |
| Prosecutor and court improper conduct | Closing remarks about tears and sympathy were improper and prejudicial. | Remarks were brief, isolated, and court instructed jurors not to consider them; harmless. | Harmless error; did not affect substantial rights. |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (Sup. Ct. 1967) (court-appointed counsel must assess meritorious issues on appeal)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (Sup. Ct. 1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- State v. Bradley, 42 Ohio St.3d 136 (Ohio 1989) (adopts Strickland standard in Ohio)
- State v. Madrigal, 87 Ohio St.3d 378 (Ohio 2000) (speculative testimony on missing expert issue not allowed on direct appeal)
- State v. Black, 181 Ohio App.3d 821 (Ohio Ct. App. 2d Dist. 2009) (prosecutorial closing remarks; harmless error analysis)