State v. Robinson

Citations

• 2019 Ohio 387

Syllabus

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW/CRIMINAL – DUE PROCESS – MIRANDA – SELF-INCRIMINATION – COUNSEL – EXPERT WITNESS – EVIDENCE – ALLIED OFFENSES – R.C. 2941.25: Where the record demonstrates that the evidence against defendant was overwhelming, limited references to his post-Miranda silence did not violate defendant's right to due process or his right to remain silent. [But see DISSENT: The state violated defendant's right against self-incrimination when it used defendant's silence as substantive evidence of his guilt, and the error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, because the evidence of defendant's guilt was not overwhelming.] Counsel was not ineffective for failing to file a motion to suppress evidence seized during a search of defendant's girlfriend's apartment where none of the evidence seized was consequential to the material issues at trial. Any prejudice defendant suffered due to the state's failure to correct testimony from a forensic expert about gunshot stippling on the shooting victim, who may have been wearing a sweatshirt about which the expert was unaware and which would have affected the expert's opinion, was cured when defense counsel addressed the issue with the witness during cross-examination. Because the murder of one victim and the felonious assault of another victim were the sole aggravating harms in the aggravated-burglary and aggravated-robbery counts related to each victim, the three offenses related to each victim were allied offenses of similar import. Aggravated-burglary counts that have as their aggravating factors the physical harm of different victims are not allied offenses of similar import, because the harms are separate and identifiable. An aggravated-burglary count predicated on defendant's possession of a firearm is not an allied offense of similar import to an aggravated-burglary count relating to the same breaking and entering but aggravated by physical harm to a victim, because the harms are separate and identifiable.