State v. Wilson, 2018 Ohio 5167

Background

Defendant F. Leon Wilson, a chess teacher, was indicted on three counts of gross sexual imposition (two counts involving E.C., age 4, one count involving K.P., age 7); school-safety specifications attached.
First jury in February 2016 deadlocked and was discharged (mistrial); Wilson produced juror affidavits later claiming misconduct; second jury convicted Wilson on Counts 1 and 3 and acquitted on Count 2.
Wilson raised multiple challenges on direct appeal (including admissibility of videotaped forensic interviews and Brady-type allegations); this court affirmed and Ohio Supreme Court declined review.
Wilson filed a petition for post-conviction relief (PCR) supported by juror, attorney, and investigator affidavits; trial court denied the PCR without a hearing.
On appeal from denial of PCR, the court reviewed admissibility of juror affidavits under Evid. R. 606(B)/aliunde rule, res judicata for claims that could have been raised on direct appeal, and Strickland standards for ineffective assistance claims.

Issues

Issue	Wilson's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Admissibility of juror and related affidavits to impeach first jury verdict	Affidavits show juror misconduct and support that retrial on Count 3 violated double jeopardy; PCR merits a hearing	Juror affidavits concern internal deliberations and are barred by Evid. R. 606(B); aliunde foundation absent; affidavits were obtained long after discharge and are unreliable	Court held juror/attorney/investigator affidavits inadmissible under Evid. R. 606(B) and aliunde rule; no hearing required; no double jeopardy relief granted
Whether retrial prejudiced defense (spillover effect)	Erroneous retrial of Count 3 allowed prejudicial evidence about K.P. that affected Count 1	Retrial was proper; juror affidavits inadmissible so spillover claim is moot	Court found spillover argument moot given exclusion of affidavits and denied relief
Brady / state-withheld evidence regarding E.C.’s memory	State withheld that E.C. could not remember the defendant or the events, violating due process and counsel ineffective for not using this	Information about E.C.’s limited recall was disclosed at competency hearing and in pretrial proceedings; issue was raised on direct appeal	Court treated claim as previously litigated/res judicata; held state did not withhold material evidence and counsel’s strategy was reasonable; claim denied
Multiple ineffective-assistance claims against trial and PCR counsel (failure to call witnesses, hire experts, preserve issues, challenge indictment, etc.)	Trial counsel missed opportunities (impeachment, witnesses, DNA expert, objecting to court/judge statements); PCR counsel failed to raise some stronger claims	Many allegations were either in the record (could be raised on direct appeal) or speculative; strategic decisions are presumptively reasonable under Strickland; omitted claims did not prejudice Wilson	Court applied Strickland and res judicata, found insufficiency of operative facts and prejudice, and denied PCR and related ineffective-assistance claims

Key Cases Cited

State v. Calhoun, 86 Ohio St.3d 279 (Ohio 1999) (trial court may dismiss PCR without hearing where petition and record fail to show sufficient operative facts)
State v. Schiebel, 55 Ohio St.3d 71 (Ohio 1990) (juror affidavit about another juror not considered without aliunde evidence)
Warger v. Shauers, 135 S. Ct. 521 (U.S. 2014) (Rule 606(b) bars juror testimony about deliberations to show dishonesty during voir dire absent exception)
Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado, 137 S. Ct. 855 (U.S. 2017) (narrow exception permitting juror testimony where racial animus is shown to have influenced verdict)
State v. Gondor, 112 Ohio St.3d 377 (Ohio 2006) (appellate review of PCR denial limited to abuse of discretion standard)
Dietz v. Bouldin, 136 S. Ct. 1885 (U.S. 2016) (federal civil cases: limited inherent power to recall discharged jury; court discussed prejudice factors and limited applicability to criminal cases)
State v. Perry, 10 Ohio St.2d 175 (Ohio 1967) (res judicata bars claims that were or could have been raised on direct appeal)