State v. Newby

Citations

• 241 N.E.3d 849
• 2024 Ohio 1391

Syllabus

Denial of the right to effective assistance of counsel is not demonstrated in defense counsel's joint representation of appellant and her co-defendant, where co-defendant was charged as the principal and appellant was charged by way of complicity in the same offenses. Appellant executed a waiver of conflict of interest prior to trial, the interests of appellant and her co-defendant were not incompatible and did not diverge, and the record does not demonstrate an actual conflict of interest. Ineffective assistance is not demonstrated in defense counsel's asserting self-defense on behalf of co-defendant but not appellant, where appellant did not use any force. Defense counsel's alleged egregious conduct in cross-examining the State's witnesses was a matter of trial strategy, and prejudice is not demonstrated. Moreover, the jury is presumed to have followed the court's instructions to disregard \editorializing\ by defense counsel and that closing arguments were not evidence. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to admit irrelevant evidence of the victim's prior speeding record. Appellant's argument that the trial court erred in not admitting the victim's Facebook video discussing the shooting is without merit because defense counsel did not seek to admit the video. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to instruct the jury on aggravated assault as an inferior offense of felonious assault there was no evidence of serious provocation, and the inferior offense was inconsistent with the theory of self-defense. Appellant's conviction for complicity to attempted murder was supported by sufficient evidence and was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Judgment affirmed.