State v. Wright, 2017 Ohio 8702

Background

Dennis Wright, a rural church pastor, was indicted on multiple sexual-offense counts (sexual battery, unlawful sexual conduct with a minor, gross sexual imposition, rape) based on allegations from three complainants: a teenage congregant (M.S.), a developmentally disabled adult congregant (T.R.), and Wright’s son (J.W.).
The indictment included sexually violent predator specifications on several counts; Wright pleaded not guilty and waived trial on the SVP specifications. Jury trial occurred May 2016. Wright was convicted on all counts except one (illegal use of a minor in nudity-oriented material) and sentenced to consecutive terms including life.
Before trial the State moved to admit Evid.R. 404(B) “other acts” evidence through testimony of an unindicted witness (T.S.), who would say Wright touched her breasts during driving lessons when she was 14–15.
The trial court allowed T.S.’s testimony; the jury received a limiting instruction (given at closing, not contemporaneously). T.S. testified that Wright tried to put his hands down her shirt and pants while giving driving instruction.
Wright appealed arguing (1) admission of T.S.’s testimony was overly prejudicial other-acts evidence violating due process and (2) ineffective assistance because trial counsel failed to move to sever counts. The Fourth District affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Wright)	Held
Admissibility of other-acts testimony (Evid.R. 404(B) / Evid.R. 403)	Testimony from T.S. was admissible to show motive, preparation, plan, and modus operandi (grooming via driving lessons) and was probative to corroborate M.S.	Admission improperly introduced propensity evidence through an unindicted witness and was unduly prejudicial	Court held T.S.’s testimony met the three-part Williams test (relevant, legitimate purpose, probative value not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice) and admission was not an abuse of discretion; limiting instruction cured prejudice
Timing/limiting instruction	Limiting instruction at closing was sufficient; juries are presumed to follow instructions	Trial court should have given contemporaneous limiting instruction before T.S.’s testimony; prejudice was compounded by voluminous counts	Court found the late limiting instruction acceptable (citing precedent) and presumed jury compliance; no reversible error
Joinder/severance of counts (Crim.R. 8/14)	Joinder was proper; offenses are same/similar character or part of a course of conduct and evidence of each was simple and direct	Joinder of 15 counts spanning decades prejudiced Wright; counsel ineffective for not moving to sever	Court applied joinder test and other-acts test: evidence for each victim was simple, direct, and separately provable; failure to move to sever did not constitute prejudice or ineffective assistance
Ineffective assistance of counsel for not moving to sever	State: no prejudice shown; court likely would have denied severance; counsel’s performance not deficient	Wright: counsel’s omission deprived him of fair trial because joinder allowed cumulative prejudice	Court held Strickland not satisfied — counsel’s omission was not shown to be deficient with resulting prejudice; judgment affirmed

Key Cases Cited

State v. Williams, 983 N.E.2d 1278 (Ohio 2012) (sets three-step test for admissibility of other-acts evidence under Evid.R. 404(B))
Lott v. Ohio, 555 N.E.2d 293 (Ohio 1990) (joinder favored where offenses are same/similar; simple and direct evidence negates prejudice)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-prong standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
State v. Fry, 926 N.E.2d 1239 (Ohio 2010) (joinder/severance principles and abuse-of-discretion review)
State v. Schaim, 600 N.E.2d 661 (Ohio 1992) (trial court not required to give unrequested limiting instruction sua sponte)
State v. Mills, 582 N.E.2d 972 (Ohio 1991) (jury must consider each count separately; joinder test explained)