State v. Hubbard

Citations

• 2024 Ohio 2161

Syllabus

App.R. 26(B) ineffective assistance of appellate counsel ineffective assistance of trial counsel jury instructions lesser included offense, murder felonious assault couching for truthfulness, informant's proffer, and prejudice. This court denied the appellant's App.R. 26(B) application to reopen on the grounds of ineffective assistance of appellate and trial counsel. The trial court did not err in instructing on felonious assault, even when one of the defendants unloaded his clip at the murder victim. The evidence that the appellant was repulsed by the killing allowed the jury to conclude reasonably that he thought he and his codefendant were only going to harm the victim and not kill him. Asking what jury instructions should be given is a question of strategy and tactics and does not establish ineffective assistance of trial counsel. Appellate counsel in the exercise of professional judgment made a forceful argument that the appellant was not guilty of felonious assault, instead of arguing that the trial court should not have instructed on felonious assault. The police officer did not vouch for an informant's truthfulness rather he noted how the informant's proffer corroborated with evidence from the crime scene and obtained from the cell phones and DNA analysis. Appellant did not show prejudice from one victim's testimony.