Issue on Appeal: Ineffective Counsel for not Raising Self Defense
Background: On April 28, 2023, a confrontation occurred at the Bay View Yacht Club. R.R. and his wife, J.R., reported an assault to the police, alleging that Gregory punched R.R., and Shannon scratched him. After initial investigations, the case was filed in Toledo Municipal Court on May 11, 2023, and proceeded to trial in April 2024. During trial, Gregory attempted to present a self-defense claim, but the court sustained objections from the prosecution due to the lack of proper notice under Crim.R. 12.2. The trial court excluded self-defense evidence and found both Gregory and Shannon guilty of assault, sentencing them to 180 days in jail (suspended), one year probation, and restitution of $964.32.
Legal Issue: The appellants raised several errors on appeal, with the primary issue being ineffective assistance of counsel due to the failure to file notice of self-defense. The state acknowledged this error.
Court of Appeals Analysis: Crim.R. 12.2 requires defendants to file written notice of intent to assert a self-defense claim at least fourteen days before trial. The appellants’ counsel failed to file this notice, preventing the trial court from considering self-defense. The appellate court applied the Strickland v. Washington standard, concluding that trial counsel’s failure prejudiced the defense, depriving the appellants of their right to a fair trial.
Conclusion: The appellate court reversed the trial court’s judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings, ruling that the trial court’s exclusion of self-defense based on counsel’s error violated the appellants’ rights. The state’s failure to object to this error further supported the reversal. The court found the remaining assignments of error moot and did not address them. The state was ordered to pay the costs of the appeal.
State of Ohio/City of Toledo v. Smith, 6th Dist. Lucas Nos. L-24-1166, L-24-1167, 2025-Ohio-311
Issue on Appeal: Disclosure of Medical Records
Background: In this second interlocutory appeal under Marsy’s Law, M.O., the victim, challenged a trial court decision to release her privileged medical records to the defendant’s counsel, Stephen O’Neill. O’Neill was charged with domestic violence following a December 2022 incident. He sought access to M.O.’s medical records from a prior incident in September 2022, claiming the records were necessary to impeach her credibility and support his defense. M.O. filed a motion to quash the subpoenas, but the trial court denied it, ordering the release of her records for a limited review by the defense.
Legal Issue: M.O. contended that her medical records were statutorily privileged and should not be disclosed to O’Neill. She argued that no exception to the privilege applied, as outlined in R.C. 2317.02(B) and other statutes protecting medical and mental health records. The core issue was whether O’Neill’s constitutional rights to a fair trial and defense outweighed M.O.’s statutory privilege and Marsy’s Law rights protecting her privacy.
Court’s Analysis: The court first confirmed that the medical records were privileged under Ohio law. However, it noted that this privilege was not absolute and must be weighed against the defendant’s constitutional rights. The trial court had conducted a balancing test and ruled that O’Neill’s rights to present a defense and cross-examine the victim outweighed M.O.’s rights. However, the appellate court disagreed, finding that O’Neill’s arguments regarding the relevance of the records did not meet the threshold necessary to override M.O.’s statutory privilege. The court emphasized that the defendant could still use other evidence, such as police reports, to challenge the victim’s credibility and support his defense.
Conclusion: The appellate court reversed the trial court’s decision and found that M.O.’s medical records should not be disclosed. The court sustained M.O.’s second assignment of error, concluding that the trial court had abused its discretion in ordering the release of the records. The case was remanded for further proceedings, highlighting the importance of balancing the victim’s rights under Marsy’s Law with the defendant’s constitutional rights.