State v. Wright
2018 Ohio 668
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- Michah Wright was indicted for felonious assault, discharge of a firearm upon/over a public road, and having weapons while under disability after a victim, Sim White, was shot in the foot; firearm specifications and a repeat violent-offender spec were filed.
- Pretrial practice included discovery requests, a suppression motion, continuances, a reindictment (dismissal of the original indictment and transfer of pending motions), and a contested motion to dismiss for speedy-trial violations, which the trial court denied.
- At trial the state introduced White’s shoe (purportedly pierced by a bullet fragment); during closing the prosecutor inserted a straightened paperclip through the shoe’s sole to illustrate the defect; defense objected and requested a mistrial.
- The court gave a curative instruction telling the jury to disregard the prosecutor’s paperclip argument; the jury convicted Wright on all counts and specifications; the court imposed concurrent prison terms on the underlying counts and a mandatory consecutive three-year term for the firearms specification, for a total of nine years.
- Wright appealed raising five assignments: (A) mistrial for prosecutorial tampering/alteration of evidence; (B) double jeopardy/due process re: firearm specification; (C) denial of speedy-trial dismissal after reindictment; (D) failure to dismiss for state’s failure to preserve the bullet removed from White’s foot; (E) ineffective assistance for failing to renew motions based on (C) and (D).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Wright) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Whether a mistrial was required after prosecutor inserted a paperclip into the admitted shoe during closing | Paperclip demonstration was minor, not prejudicial; court’s curative instruction cured any issue | Inserting paperclip was an ex parte experiment/alteration breaking chain of custody and prejudicing Wright; mistrial required | No plain error; curative instruction presumed followed and remaining eyewitness evidence was strongly inculpatory, so no mistrial required |
| 2. Whether imposing a firearm specification plus sentence for the predicate firearm offense violates double jeopardy | Firearm specification is a penalty enhancement, not a separate offense; can be imposed in addition to predicate count | Specification + predicate count is double punishment for same conduct, violating double jeopardy | Rejected. Court followed State v. Ford: specification is a penalty enhancement, so no double jeopardy violation |
| 3. Whether Wright’s speedy-trial rights were violated after arrest and reindictment | Time tolled by defendant’s motions and waivers; after subtracting tolled time Wright was tried within 90 days (accounting 3-for-1 rule) | Wright argued he was not brought to trial within the statutory period and thus dismissal was required | Denial of motion to dismiss affirmed. Record showed tolling for defendant’s motions and 51 days chargeable to state, within the 90-day limit |
| 4. Whether the state’s failure to preserve the bullet removed from White’s foot required dismissal | The bullet was disclosed in medical records; no evidence it was willfully withheld or destroyed; defendant had notice | Loss/nonpreservation of the bullet deprived Wright of materially exculpatory evidence requiring dismissal | Rejected. Records disclosed the bullet and Wright did not show the evidence was materially exculpatory or withheld in bad faith |
| 5. Whether trial counsel was ineffective for not renewing/due motions on speedy-trial or failure-to-preserve grounds | Counsel’s performance was reasonable given no speedy-trial violation and no meritorious preservation claim; no prejudice shown | Counsel failed to renew/docket meritorious motions, causing prejudice | Rejected. Because underlying claims lacked merit, Wright could not show counsel’s performance caused prejudice (Strickland test) |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Franklin, 62 Ohio St.3d 118 (1991) (mistrial only when ends of justice require and fair trial no longer possible)
- State v. Barnes, 94 Ohio St.3d 21 (2002) (plain-error test in criminal cases)
- State v. Ford, 128 Ohio St.3d 398 (2011) (firearm specification is a penalty enhancement, not an offense)
- State v. Ramey, 132 Ohio St.3d 309 (2012) (statutory list of events that extend speedy-trial time is exhaustive)
- State v. Singer, 50 Ohio St.2d 103 (1977) (strict construction of speedy-trial tolling provisions against the state)
- State v. Garner, 74 Ohio St.3d 49 (1995) (jurors are presumed to follow curative instructions)
- State v. Jackson, 57 Ohio St.3d 29 (1991) (evidence is materially exculpatory only if disclosure would probably change the outcome)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong ineffective-assistance-of-counsel test)