State v. Word
2019 Ohio 1733
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- Jonte Word was tried with codefendants for crimes arising from an incident in July 2013 at his brother Jones' house: kidnappings, aggravated robberies, felonious assaults, rapes, and a weapons-under-disability charge; multiple firearm specifications accompanied most counts.
- Victims A.P., Tipton, and Harmon testified they were forced into the house, tied, blindfolded, threatened with a circular saw and guns, beaten, and sexually assaulted; Word arrived during the incident and was alleged to have participated (holding a knife, a gun, and ordering/committing assaults and sexual coercion).
- Codefendant Coffman testified against Word pursuant to a plea agreement; victims had histories of drug use; police searched the residence months after the incident.
- The state amended the indictment’s charged date from “on or about July 15, 2013” to a date range “on or about July 4 to July 14, 2013” before trial; Word objected claiming prejudice to an alibi defense.
- Word testified he was not present in July 2013 and denied involvement; the jury convicted on all counts and specifications and the trial court imposed an aggregate 50-year sentence.
- On appeal, Word raised three assignments of error: (1) the indictment amendment and related ineffective assistance claim; (2) the trial court’s complicity/jury instruction ("mere presence" language); and (3) insufficiency and manifest weight of the evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Amendment of indictment date range | Amendment was permissible under Crim.R.7(D); precise date not essential and victims had difficulty with exact date | Change prejudiced Word’s ability to present an alibi and trial counsel was ineffective for not obtaining a continuance | Court: Amendment proper; no prejudice shown; no ineffective assistance (trial counsel not deficient) |
| 2) Complicity jury instruction ("mere presence") | Instruction that "mere presence can be enough if it is intended to and does aid" correctly states the law on aiding/abetting | Requested clarifying language that mere presence is not enough unless proven to be to aid the principal | Court: Instruction, read as a whole, was correct and did not misstate law; refusal to add language was not an abuse of discretion |
| 3) Sufficiency and manifest weight of evidence | State: testimony of victims and corroborating witnesses sufficed to prove elements beyond reasonable doubt | Word: witnesses were unreliable due to drug use, plea deals; delayed police search undermines physical evidence; convictions against the manifest weight | Court: Evidence sufficient; credibility issues for jury to resolve; convictions not against manifest weight |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Sellards, 17 Ohio St.3d 169 (1985) (exact date/time in an indictment is generally immaterial; proof "at or about" the time charged is sufficient)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two‑prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (1983) (abuse of discretion standard explained)
- State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (1997) (distinguishes sufficiency of the evidence from manifest weight review)
- State v. Johnson, 93 Ohio St.3d 240 (2001) (aiding and abetting requires sharing criminal intent; intent may be inferred from circumstances)