State v. Wilson
2017 Ohio 5724
Ohio Ct. App.2017Background
- Appellant F. Leon Wilson, a school chess teacher, was indicted on three counts of gross sexual imposition involving two child victims (E.C., age 4–5; K.P., age 7), each with a school safety-zone specification.
- State recorded forensic interviews of both children at a children’s advocacy center; E.C. was not called to testify at trial because the prosecution later determined her memory was limited; K.P. testified at trial.
- Appellant sought severance of counts, contested admissibility of the videotaped interviews (arguing Confrontation Clause and hearsay problems), and later alleged nondisclosure that E.C. could not remember the events; trial court denied relief.
- First trial ended in a mistrial; at retrial appellant was convicted on two counts (one involving E.C., one involving K.P.), acquitted on one count involving E.C., and sentenced to 8.5 years’ imprisonment.
- On appeal appellant raised five assignments of error: (1) Brady/due-process nondisclosure that E.C. could not remember; (2) ineffective assistance for failing to present E.C.’s lack-of-memory; (3) Confrontation Clause challenge to admission of E.C.’s videotaped interview; (4) hearsay/Evid.R. 803(4) challenge to both videotapes; (5) abuse of discretion in denying severance (improper propensity evidence).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Wilson) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Brady / nondisclosure of E.C.’s lack of memory | State disclosed by competency hearing that E.C. had limited recall; no suppression occurred | State withheld material favorable evidence that E.C. could not remember appellant or the incident | No Brady violation; disclosure occurred earlier and later lack of memory was not a surprise; plain-error standard not met |
| 2. Ineffective assistance for not presenting E.C.’s lack-of-memory | Trial strategy to avoid calling a young child was reasonable; calling E.C. risky and could alienate jury | Counsel should have presented evidence or witnesses showing E.C. could not remember the abuse | No deficient performance or prejudice; tactical choice within counsel’s discretion |
| 3. Confrontation Clause re: E.C.’s videotape | Videotaped forensic statements were nontestimonial (for medical diagnosis/treatment); Crawford does not bar them; Clark and Muttart support admission | Admission violated Sixth Amendment because E.C. was unavailable for cross-examination | Admission did not violate Confrontation Clause; statements were nontestimonial and admissible |
| 4. Hearsay / Evid.R. 803(4) admissibility of both videotapes | Forensic interviews were conducted for medical diagnosis/treatment; interviewers coordinated with treating clinicians, so 803(4) applies | Interviewers were acting as police in disguise to elicit testimonial statements; hearsay exception inapplicable | Videotapes admissible under Evid.R. 803(4); trial court did not err; invited-error doctrine also implicated |
| 5. Denial of motion to sever counts (prejudicial joinder) | Counts properly joined under Crim.R. 8; other-acts evidence would be admissible in separate trials to show motive, intent, plan | Joinder allowed impermissible propensity inference; severance should have been granted | No abuse of discretion; evidence was simple and distinct and admissible to show motive/intent/plan; plain-error not shown |
Key Cases Cited
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (prosecution suppression of favorable, material evidence violates due process)
- United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 (1985) (materiality standard for undisclosed evidence: reasonable probability undermining confidence in outcome)
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) (testimonial out-of-court statements admissible only where declarant unavailable and defendant had prior opportunity for cross-examination)
- Ohio v. Clark, 576 U.S. 237 (2015) (statements by very young children are rarely testimonial; Confrontation Clause often not implicated)
- State v. Muttart, 116 Ohio St.3d 5 (2007) (statements for medical diagnosis or treatment are nontestimonial)
- State v. Johnston, 39 Ohio St.3d 48 (1988) (adoption of Brady analysis under Ohio law)
- State v. Schaim, 65 Ohio St.3d 51 (1992) (framework for evaluating prejudice from joinder of offenses)
- State v. Bradley, 42 Ohio St.3d 136 (1989) (standard for ineffective assistance of counsel under Ohio law)
- State v. Long, 53 Ohio St.2d 91 (1978) (plain error standard and cautionary application)