State v. Zimpfer
2016 Ohio 7330
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Defendant Thomas Zimpfer was convicted after a 2013 jury trial of multiple counts of rape and unlawful sexual conduct with a minor based on incidents between 2004–2009; aggregate sentence 33 years and Tier III registration.
- The focal event for the post-conviction petition was the 2010 “weeding incident” in which the victim (L.R.) testified Zimpfer pulled her into his home and raped her while she was age 16.
- Pretrial, the court issued a Rape Shield order barring evidence of the victim’s sexual activity except as to sexual activity with Zimpfer.
- On post-conviction review Zimpfer alleged trial counsel was ineffective for failing to (a) call witnesses (investigator Pat Tannreuther and Shannon Bemis), (b) impeach the victim’s boyfriend (D.S.) about prior statements (including an assertion the victim said she was a virgin when she first had sex), and (c) introduce evidence of Mrs. Zimpfer’s alleged extramarital affairs and alleged witness tampering.
- The trial court held a hearing, credited the defense counsel and investigator testimony, discredited portions of Bemis’s and Zimpfer’s testimony, and denied relief, finding counsel’s choices were reasonable strategy and many proffered evidentiary items were inadmissible or barred by prior rulings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial counsel was ineffective for not calling Tannreuther or Bemis to challenge D.S.’s testimony about the weeding incident | Zimpfer: counsel should have offered witnesses to undermine D.S.’s account and show inconsistencies | State: counsel made strategic decisions; witnesses had no admissible impeachment or relevant testimony | Court: counsel’s choices were reasonable trial strategy; no ineffective assistance proven |
| Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to elicit/introduce evidence that the victim told D.S. she was a virgin when they first had sex | Zimpfer: prior statement would impeach credibility and affect rape verdict | State: evidence barred by Rape Shield, hearsay, and inadmissible under Evid. R. 403 | Court: pretrial order and hearsay rules prevented admissibility; counsel not ineffective for complying |
| Whether counsel should have impeached D.S. about failing to mention the weeding incident earlier | Zimpfer: prior omission undermines D.S.’s trial testimony | State: no prior inconsistent statement existed; impeaching without foundation risky | Court: absence of prior inconsistent statements made cross-examination speculative; counsel’s restraint was reasonable |
| Whether counsel was ineffective for not using evidence of Mrs. Zimpfer’s affairs to show bias | Zimpfer: affairs and alleged statements show motive to fabricate | State: evidence would be prejudicial, peripheral, and largely inadmissible | Court: counsel reasonably avoided introducing her romantic life; exclusion under Evid. R. 403; not ineffective |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes two-prong ineffective-assistance standard)
- State v. Bradley, 42 Ohio St.3d 136 (Ohio adoption of Strickland)
- State v. Gondor, 112 Ohio St.3d 377 (deference to trial court findings on post-conviction hearings)
- State v. Stefen, 70 Ohio St.3d 399 (post-conviction as collateral civil attack)
- State v. Cook, 65 Ohio St.3d 516 (trial strategy decisions not prone to hindsight critique)
- State v. Hancock, 108 Ohio St.3d 57 (abuse-of-discretion standard explained)