State v. Terry
2021 Ohio 2091
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2021Background
- Fernando Terry was convicted of misdemeanor assault after an altercation in the driveway of his on-again/off-again girlfriend, Teninnah Ross.
- Ross testified Terry punched and choked her, she fell and screamed for help, and Terry later fled the scene and sent apologetic messages; she denied slapping him first and described prior threats, stalking, and uninvited visits by Terry.
- Terry testified Ross slapped him first, he hit her back in reaction (claiming self-defense), and denied the prior-threats/stalking statements attributed to him; he answered he did not believe she would hit him again.
- Defense counsel raised self-defense in opening and closing, elicited testimony from Terry about the alleged slap, and cross-examined Ross to obtain admissions that she had not reported prior incidents.
- On appeal Terry argued ineffective assistance of counsel: (1) inadequate voir dire, (2) failure to object to prejudicial prior-bad-act testimony, and (3) failure to properly present self-defense evidence.
- The court applied the Strickland standard and affirmed, finding counsel’s voir dire and evidentiary decisions were reasonable trial strategy, counsel both elicited and argued self-defense, and Terry’s own testimony undercut the self-defense element of fear of imminent harm.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adequacy of voir dire | Counsel’s voir dire was reasonable trial strategy and adequate to seat an impartial jury | Counsel failed to properly question specific jurors, producing a biased jury | Court: Counsel’s voir dire was thorough; no deficient performance |
| Failure to object to prior-bad-act/stalking testimony | Counsel reasonably chose cross-examination and limited objections as strategy; elicited admissions that undermined victim’s claims | Counsel was ineffective for not objecting to prejudicial, irrelevant testimony about threats, stalking, and uninvited visits | Court: Strategic choices justified; no ineffective assistance shown |
| Failure to present/argue self-defense | Counsel elicited testimony on self-defense and argued it in closing; Terry’s testimony negated a key element (fear of further harm) | Counsel failed to understand self-defense elements and did not introduce supporting evidence | Court: Counsel elicited and argued self-defense; Terry’s testimony undermined claim, so no prejudice or deficient performance |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (establishes two-part ineffective-assistance standard: deficient performance and prejudice)
- State v. Bradley, 42 Ohio St.3d 136, 538 N.E.2d 373 (1989) (applies Strickland standard in Ohio)
- State v. Evans, 63 Ohio St.3d 231, 586 N.E.2d 1042 (1992) (defense counsel voir dire is presumed trial strategy; no fixed form required)
- State v. Johnson, 994 N.E.2d 896 (Ohio Ct. App. 2013) (voir dire need not follow a particular form; counsel’s questioning assessed under deferential standard)
- State v. Smith, 99 N.E.3d 1230 (1st Dist. 2017) (reinforces that counsel’s conduct during voir dire is presumed strategic)