State v. Williams
2021 Ohio 2491
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2021Background
- Dec. 3, 2018: R.M., a 61‑year‑old developmentally disabled woman, was forcibly anally raped in her apartment; assailant took her phone, nightshirt, and wiped evidence. Male DNA from R.M. matched Jesse Williams. R.M. identified Williams from a photo array.
- Dec. 14, 2018: T.L., a nearby neighbor, fought off a man partially climbing through her bedroom window; she later saw Williams’ photo in the media and contacted police, then identified him in a subsequent police photo array and in‑court.
- Williams was indicted on multiple counts related to both incidents; several counts were later dismissed and a jury convicted him on the remaining charges. He was sentenced to 11 years and classified a Tier III sex offender.
- On appeal Williams raised three errors: (1) ineffective assistance for failing to move to suppress T.L.’s photo array ID, (2) ineffective assistance for failing to request a cross‑racial identification jury instruction, and (3) plain error in allowing R.M. to testify with a companion dog present.
- The Ninth District Court of Appeals affirmed, rejecting each assignment of error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Williams) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel was ineffective for not moving to suppress T.L.’s photo‑array ID as unduly suggestive | Photo‑array ID was cumulative to other admissible IDs (media‑photo contact and in‑court ID); suppression would not change outcome | Array was suggestive (skin‑tone differences), T.L.’s view was brief/dim, and prior exposure to media photo tainted reliability; counsel should have moved to suppress | No ineffective assistance: even assuming suppression, other independent IDs (media contact and in‑court ID) and evidence negate a reasonable probability of acquittal |
| Whether counsel was ineffective for not requesting a jury instruction on cross‑racial identification | General credibility and reasonable‑doubt instructions sufficiently cover witness reliability; specific instruction not required | Cross‑racial ID is notoriously unreliable; counsel should have requested a cautionary instruction and/or presented expert testimony | No ineffective assistance: court’s general credibility instructions and facts (witness looked assailant in the eyes for an extended time) make acquittal not reasonably probable absent the instruction |
| Whether allowing R.M. to testify with a companion dog was plain error | Trial court acted within discretion (Evid.R. 611); victim’s vulnerability justified accommodation; court gave jury explicit cautionary instructions | Presence of the dog fostered sympathy and suggested vulnerability, affecting defendant’s substantial rights; plain error review required because no contemporaneous objection | No plain error: record supports victim vulnerability, court twice instructed jury not to infer from dog’s presence, and circumstances do not show a manifest miscarriage of justice |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes two‑prong ineffective assistance test)
- State v. Bradley, 42 Ohio St.3d 136 (prejudice prong standard for ineffective assistance in Ohio)
- State v. Guster, 66 Ohio St.2d 266 (trial court not required to give eyewitness‑identification instruction in all cases)
- State v. Long, 53 Ohio St.2d 91 (plain‑error standard; notice of plain error to be used with caution)
- State v. Perez, 124 Ohio St.3d 122 (presumption jury follows limiting/cautionary instructions)