State v. Thompson
2019 Ohio 2525
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- Lee C. Thompson was indicted for third-degree domestic violence and abduction based on incidents culminating November 20, 2016; he pleaded not guilty and was tried by jury.
- Victim J.S. testified about ongoing prior abuse and a specific November 20, 2016 incident where Thompson allegedly restrained and beat her; she later sought medical care showing rib bruising.
- Police officer James Null testified about interviewing J.S., administering a domestic-violence screening, and transporting her to shelters; the state stipulated to two prior domestic-violence convictions for Thompson.
- The jury convicted Thompson of domestic violence (with findings of two prior convictions) but acquitted him of abduction; the trial court sentenced him to three years’ imprisonment.
- Thompson appealed claiming ineffective assistance of trial counsel (six complaints about failures to object, stipulations, and voir dire) and argued cumulative error denied him a fair trial.
- The Tenth District affirmed, finding counsel’s conduct fell within reasonable professional judgment or did not prejudice the outcome given strong victim testimony about the charged event.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to object to testimony about prior acts | State contended prior-acts testimony related to fear and abduction charge and was admissible | Thompson argued such testimony was inadmissible other-acts evidence under Evid.R. 404(B) and counsel should have objected | Court held testimony was relevant to abduction/fear and likely admissible; no prejudice shown from lack of objection |
| Whether counsel erred by not requesting a limiting instruction on other-acts evidence | State noted instruction is tactical and jury was instructed properly at trial | Thompson said counsel should have requested a limiting instruction to minimize prejudice | Court treated decision as trial strategy and found no reasonable probability of different outcome without the instruction |
| Whether counsel was ineffective for stipulating to and not redacting prior-conviction records | State argued stipulations were reasonable to prove priors and clarify record | Thompson argued stipulations/failed redactions introduced extraneous prejudicial details | Court found counsel’s stipulations reasonable and any extraneous details did not prejudice the verdict on domestic violence |
| Whether counsel’s failures to object (closing vouching, hearsay, court statements) amounted to ineffective assistance | State argued remarks/testimony were either proper, explanatory of investigation, or cured by jury instructions | Thompson claimed counsel should have objected to prosecutorial vouching, hearsay in officer testimony, and non-neutral judicial remarks | Court found either no error, admissible investigatory testimony (not hearsay), or no prejudice given jury instructions and that jury acquitted on abduction; thus no ineffective assistance proven |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes two-prong ineffective-assistance test)
- State v. Conway, 109 Ohio St.3d 412 (discusses presumption that counsel’s conduct is reasonable)
- State v. Williams, 79 Ohio St.3d 1 (impropriety of counsel or prosecutor expressing personal belief in witness credibility)
- State v. Obermiller, 147 Ohio St.3d 175 (commenting on defendant’s silence is improper generally)
- State v. Loza, 71 Ohio St.3d 61 (jurors presumed to follow court instructions)
- State v. DeMarco, 31 Ohio St.3d 191 (cumulative-error framework)
- State v. Schaim, 65 Ohio St.3d 51 (tactical reasons may counsel against limiting instruction)