State v. West
91 N.E.3d 365
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Matthew West was indicted for two counts of felonious assault, one count of abduction, and one count of domestic violence arising from injuries sustained by his girlfriend M.A. after an altercation on June 11–12, 2015.
- M.A. initially told her ex-husband, hospital personnel, and Officer Graf that West assaulted, punched, kicked, and pushed her; she was examined at the hospital and later diagnosed with a fractured shoulder requiring surgery.
- M.A. later recanted at trial, testifying she fell down stairs and had earlier lied to get to the hospital; however, her recorded statements to police and written domestic-violence affidavit were played and used to impeach her.
- The State presented testimony from medical staff, the responding officer, M.A.’s ex-husband, and an expert on domestic violence/recantation; the defense called West, who denied the assault.
- The jury convicted West on all counts; the trial court merged allied counts for sentencing and imposed concurrent four-year prison terms on the felonious assault counts.
- On appeal, West raised evidentiary challenges to hearsay and impeachment uses of M.A.’s prior statements, challenge to the expert testimony, alleged improper cross-examination, and ineffective assistance of counsel.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | West's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admission of victim's out-of-court statements (to ex-husband, police, medical staff) and recorded interview | Statements admissible under excited-utterance and medical-treatment exceptions; recorded interview admissible for impeachment under Evid.R. 613 | Admission and the State's use as substantive evidence violated hearsay rules and due process; lack of limiting instruction prejudiced defendant | Court upheld admission: excited-utterance (Evid.R. 803(2)) and medical-treatment (Evid.R. 803(4)) exceptions applied; recorded statement properly used for impeachment; any prosecutorial reliance on the prior statement was not outcome-determinative (no plain-error reversal) |
| Admission and scope of expert testimony on domestic violence/recantation | Expert testimony was relevant and within Evid.R. 702; helped explain recantation and discrepancies | Testimony was unreliable, not helpful, and unfairly prejudicial | Court found testimony relevant, expert qualified, testimony permissible and not unfairly prejudicial; no abuse of discretion |
| Scope of State's cross-examination of defendant | Cross-examination on credibility and inconsistencies was proper and within trial court discretion | Cross-examination improperly forced defendant to accuse other witnesses of lying or undermine his story | Court held cross-examination permissible; trial court did not abuse discretion in sustaining objections when appropriate |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel (failure to object, request limiting instructions, challenge closing argument, pursue certain lines of questioning) | Tactical choices by counsel and lack of meritorious objections meant no reasonable probability of a different outcome | Cumulative errors deprived West of a fair trial | Court applied Strickland/Bradley and concluded counsel’s performance did not prejudice outcome; claims rejected |
Key Cases Cited
- Pons v. Ohio State Med. Bd., 66 Ohio St.3d 619 (Ohio 1993) (abuse-of-discretion standard for evidentiary rulings)
- State v. Roberts, 805 N.E.2d 594 (Ohio Ct. App. 2004) (trial court discretion in admission of evidence)
- State v. Barnes, 94 Ohio St.3d 21 (Ohio 2002) (plain-error test under Crim.R. 52(B))
- State v. Nemeth, 82 Ohio St.3d 202 (Ohio 1998) (expert testimony and specialized knowledge under Evid.R. 702)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-part ineffective-assistance-of-counsel test)