State v. Mathis

Citations

• 2019 Ohio 3654

Syllabus

Rape gross sexual imposition kidnapping prosecutorial misconduct DNA analysis ineffective assistance of counsel character witness opinion testimony victim impact evidence harmless error plain error cumulative error. It is not misconduct for a prosecutor to refer to the defendant's specific acts during cross-examination of a character witness after the defendant put his character at issue. Such cross-examination may also include reference to defendant's prior arrest regardless of whether it lead to a conviction. Where the defendant was previously charged with domestic violence and convicted of disorderly conduct, it is a harmless error for the prosecutor to refer to an associated assault conviction that does not exist where such reference does not cause prejudice. There is no plain error where a court admits evidence of an inconclusive DNA analysis where evidence otherwise establishes defendant's guilt. The failure to make an objection, alone, is not enough to establish a claim for ineffective assistance of counsel. Moreover, a claim for ineffective assistance of counsel as part of a direct appeal cannot be predicated on evidence that is outside of the record. Lay witness opinion testimony about child-victims of sexual abuse is not improper where the testimony is rationally based on the witness' experience and is helpful to a determination of a fact in issue. There is no prejudicial error where a court admits evidence that the victim sought counseling after rape where the evidence was brief and not overly emotional or inflammatory. Where the conviction stands absent the testimony regarding counseling, its admission was harmless error. Where multiple harmless errors occurred at trial, but where defendant otherwise received a fair trial and defendant's guilt was established by overwhelming evidence there is no cumulative error.