State v. Thompson
2017 Ohio 792
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Defendant Richard Thompson owned a pit bull, Mack; Mack had previously bitten people and Thompson had prior guilty pleas for failure to confine after two earlier incidents.
- On March 22, 2016, neighbor Steven Royal reported a dog circling his car and snapping at the tires on his property; Royal and his wife and another neighbor (Jensen) identified the dog as Thompson’s pit bull.
- Defense witnesses (Thompson, his wife, and daughter) testified Mack was at home and described a different marking pattern than the prosecution witnesses; Thompson claimed the dogs were inside when the incident occurred.
- Defense sought to admit a photograph of Mack during its case-in-chief; the court excluded the photo because it had not been shared during the State’s case and the State’s witnesses who identified the dog were not available to view/identify it.
- During closing, the prosecutor opined that the daughter’s testimony was rehearsed; defense moved for a mistrial which the court denied and instead gave standard jury instructions (including that closing arguments are not evidence).
- Jury found Thompson guilty of violating R.C. 955.22(C) (failure to confine a dog); Thompson appealed raising errors in jury instructions, exclusion of evidence, and prosecutorial misconduct.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether jury instructions improperly described elements of R.C. 955.22(C) (strict liability and omission/voluntary-act requirements) | State: R.C. 955.22(C) is a strict liability offense; no culpable mental state required; court’s instruction correctly followed precedent | Thompson: Instruction conflicted with R.C. 2901.21(A) by omitting voluntary-act/omission requirement and by not specifying "of some person" for reasonable control | Court: Affirmed — R.C. 2901.21(B) permits strict liability for this offense; omission language was not material given facts and witnesses’ testimony; no abuse of discretion |
| Whether trial court abused discretion by excluding a photograph of the dog | State: Admission would unfairly surprise State because witnesses who identified the dog were already excused and couldn’t identify the photo | Thompson: Photo was relevant to identity and should have been admitted | Court: Affirmed — exclusion was within trial court’s discretion to prevent prejudice; no material prejudice shown |
| Whether prosecutor’s closing remark that testimony was "rehearsed" amounted to prosecutorial misconduct requiring mistrial | State: Closing argument remarks are permitted inferences; not outcome-determinative | Thompson: Prosecutor improperly expressed personal belief about witness credibility and prejudiced jury | Court: Affirmed — comment was improper but isolated; defense objected; court instructed jury that arguments are not evidence; evidence against defendant was sufficient; no prejudice shown |
| Whether cumulative errors require reversal | N/A | N/A | Court: No reversible error; conviction affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Smith v. Phillips, 455 U.S. 209 (U.S. 1982) (due process analysis focuses on fairness of trial in prosecutorial-misconduct claims)
- Donnelly v. DeChristoforo, 416 U.S. 637 (U.S. 1974) (prosecutorial remarks must not so infect trial with unfairness as to deny due process)
- Pang v. Minch, 53 Ohio St.3d 186 (Ohio 1990) (presumption that jurors follow limiting instructions)
- State v. Squires, 108 Ohio App.3d 716 (Ohio Ct. App. 1996) (failure to confine a dog under R.C. 955.22(C) treated as strict liability)
- State v. Lott, 51 Ohio St.3d 160 (Ohio 1990) (test for prosecutorial misconduct: impropriety and prejudice to substantial rights)
- State v. Treesh, 90 Ohio St.3d 460 (Ohio 2001) (improper comments do not affect substantial rights if verdict certain absent remarks)