State v. Gideon
| Decision Date | 01 June 2021 |
| Docket Number | NO. 1-18-29, NO. 1-18-28,NO. 1-18-27,1-18-27 |
| Parties | STATE of Ohio, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James A. GIDEON, Defendant-Appellant. State of Ohio, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James A. Gideon, Defendant-Appellant. State of Ohio, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James A. Gideon, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
Dennis C. Belli, Columbus, for Appellant.
Anthony L. Geiger, Lima, for Appellee.
{¶1} This case is before this court on remand from the Supreme Court of Ohio. State v. Gideon , ––– Ohio St.3d ––––, 2020-Ohio-5635, ––– N.E.3d ––––, overruled , State v. Gideon , ––– Ohio St.3d ––––, 2020-Ohio-6961, ––– N.E.3d ––––. Based on the Supreme Court of Ohio's instructions, we will consider the assignments of error that were rendered moot by our prior opinion. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
{¶2} This case was originally before this court on appeal from the May 11, 2018 judgment entries of sentence of the Lima Municipal Court convicting defendant-appellant, James. A. Gideon ("Gideon"), of sexual imposition in case numbers 17CRB01385, 17CRB01386, and 17CRB01387.1 In that appeal, this court vacated Gideon's sexual-imposition convictions and remanded the cases for a new trial after we concluded that the trial court should have granted Gideon's motions to suppress evidence under Garrity v. New Jersey. 385 U.S. 493, 87 S.Ct. 616, 17 L.Ed.2d 562 (1967). On review, the Supreme Court of Ohio concluded on December 15, 2020 that Gideon's subjective belief
that his medical license would be penalized for remaining silent was not objectively reasonable. Gideon , ––– Ohio St.3d ––––, 2020-Ohio-5635, ––– N.E.3d ––––, at ¶ 24. The court further concluded that assignments of error challenging sufficiency of the evidence cannot be considered moot notwithstanding a conclusion that evidence was improperly admitted at trial. Id. at ¶ 29.
{¶3} On December 31, 2020, the Supreme Court of Ohio recognized that it applied an incorrect standard of review in its previous opinion and granted Gideon's motion to reconsider that opinion. Gideon , ––– Ohio St.3d ––––, 2020-Ohio-6961, ––– N.E.3d ––––, at fn. 1. Applying the correct standard of review, the Supreme Court of Ohio reconsidered its previous opinion but remained steadfast in its conclusion that Gideon's subjective belief that his medical license would be penalized for remaining silent was not objectively reasonable. Id. at ¶ 24. The court's sufficiency-of-the-evidence conclusion remained unchanged. Id. at ¶ 29. Although not assigned as error, the Supreme Court ordered the other assignments of error that this court deemed to be moot to be considered on remand. Based on the court's opinion, we will proceed to address the three assignments of error which had been found moot.
The Trial Court's Order Consolidating the Separately-Docketed Sexual Imposition Charges for the Trial Exposed Defendant-Appellant to a Substantial Likelihood that the Jury Would "Bootstrap" the Allegations of Different Patients in Contravention of Evid.R. 404(B) and R.C. 2907.06(B), and Thereby Violated His Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment Right to a Fundamentally Fair Jury Trial. (Apx. A-19; 04/20/18 Tr. 82-84; 04/21/18 Tr. 20-21)
{¶4} In his second assignment of error, Gideon argues that he was unfairly prejudiced by the trial court's order joining the cases for purposes of trial. Specifically, Gideon contends that the trial court abused its discretion by joining the cases for purposes of trial because it permitted the jury to "impermissibly use testimony supporting one charge as corroboration for other charges." (Appellant's Brief at 15).
{¶5} "Issues of joinder and severance are generally reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard." State v. Plott , 3d Dist., 2017-Ohio-38, 80 N.E.3d 1108, ¶ 52, citing State v. Shook , 3d Dist. Logan No. 8-14-01, 2014-Ohio-3987, 2014 WL 4588334, ¶ 22 and State v. Bell , 3d Dist. Seneca No. 13-12-39, 2013-Ohio-1299, 2013 WL 1288653, ¶ 27. An abuse of discretion implies that the trial court acted unreasonably, arbitrarily, or unconscionably. State v. Adams , 62 Ohio St.2d 151, 157, 404 N.E.2d 144 (1980).
{¶6} "In general, the law favors joining multiple offenses in a single trial if the offenses charged ‘are of the same or similar character.’ " State v. Valentine , 5th Dist. Fairfield No. 18 CA 27, 2019-Ohio-2243, 2019 WL 2394239, ¶ 43, quoting State v. Lott , 51 Ohio St.3d 160, 163, 555 N.E.2d 293 (1990), citing State v. Torres , 66 Ohio St.2d 340, 421 N.E.2d 1288 (1981). "Under Crim.R. 13, a trial court may order two or more indictments to be tried together ‘if the offenses or the defendants could have been joined in a single indictment or information.’ " Plott at ¶ 54, quoting Crim.R. 13. "Two or more offenses may be charged in the same indictment if they are of ‘the same or similar character, or are based on the same act or transaction, or are based on two or more acts or transactions connected together or constituting parts of a
common scheme or plan, or are part of a course of criminal conduct.’ " Id. , quoting Crim.R. 8(A).
{¶7} "Nonetheless, if it appears that a criminal defendant would be prejudiced by such joinder, then the trial court is required to order separate trials." Valentine at ¶ 44, citing Crim.R. 14.
To prevail on a motion to sever, a defendant has the burden of demonstrating that "(1) his rights were prejudiced, (2) that at the time of the motion to sever he provided the trial court with sufficient information so that it could weigh the considerations favoring joinder against the defendant's right to a fair trial, and (3) that given the information provided to the court, it abused its discretion in refusing to separate the charges for trial."
Plott at ¶ 55, quoting State v. Schaim , 65 Ohio St.3d 51, 59, 600 N.E.2d 661 (1992). "A defendant's claim of prejudice is negated when: (1) evidence of the other crimes would have been admissible as ‘other acts’ evidence under Evid.R. 404(B) or (2) the evidence of each crime joined at trial is simple and direct." State v. Ahmed , 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 84220, 2005-Ohio-2999, 2005 WL 1406282, ¶ 22, citing Lott at 163, 555 N.E.2d 293, Schaim at 59, 600 N.E.2d 661, and State v. Franklin , 62 Ohio St.3d 118, 122, 580 N.E.2d 1 (1991).
{¶8} " ‘ Evid.R. 404(B) provides that "[e]vidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show action in conformity therewith.’ " " State v. Bagley , 3d Dist. Allen No. 1-13-31, 2014-Ohio-1787, 2014 WL 1692720, ¶ 56, quoting State v. May , 3d Dist. Logan No. 8-11-19, 2012-Ohio-5128, 2012 WL 5397126, ¶ 69, quoting Evid.R. 404(B). " ‘However, there are exceptions to the general rule: "It may, however, be admissible for other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident.’ " " Bagley at ¶ 56, quoting May at ¶ 69, quoting Evid.R. 404(B). See also R.C. 2945.59. " ‘The list of acceptable reasons for admitting testimony of prior bad acts into evidence is non-exhaustive.’ " Bagley at ¶ 56, quoting State v. Persohn , 7th Dist. Columbiana No. 11 CO 37, 2012-Ohio-6091, 2012 WL 6679921, ¶ 23, citing State v. Melton , 11th Dist. Lake No. 2009-L-078, 2010-Ohio-1278, 2010 WL 1177336, ¶ 78, and citing State v. Faye , 3d Dist. Wyandot Nos. 16-99-08 and 16-99-09, 2000 WL 566741, *4 (May 4, 2000).
{¶9} " ‘Under the second method, the "joinder" test, the state is merely required to show that evidence of each crime joined at trial is simple and direct.’ " Valentine at ¶ 47, quoting Lott at 163, 555 N.E.2d 293. The Supreme Court of Ohio has unequivocally stated "that ‘when simple and direct evidence exists, an accused is not prejudiced by joinder regardless of the nonadmissibility of evidence of these crimes as ‘other acts’ under Evid.R. 404(B)." Id. , quoting Lott at 163, 555 N.E.2d 293. "Evidence is ‘simple and direct’ if (1) the jury is capable of readily separating the proof required for each offense, (2) the evidence is unlikely to confuse jurors, (3) the evidence is straightforward, and (4) there is little danger that the jury would ‘improperly consider testimony on one offense as corroborative of the other.’ " (Citations omitted.) Id. at ¶ 48, quoting State v. Wright , 4th Dist. Jackson No. 16CA3, 2017-Ohio-8702, 2017 WL 5664766, ¶ 52.
{¶10} "Courts have held that evidence of multiple offenses is ‘simple and direct’ where, for example, the offenses involved different victims, different incidents or factual scenarios, and different witnesses." Id. at ¶ 49, citing
State v. Dantzler , 10th Dist. Franklin Nos. 14AP-907 and 14AP-908, 2015-Ohio-3641, 2015 WL 5209331, ¶ 23 () and State v. Lewis , 6th Dist. Lucas Nos. L-09-1224 and L-09-1225, 2010-Ohio-4202, 2010 WL 3480728, ¶ 33 ().
{¶11} "If either the ‘other acts’ test or the ‘simple and direct’ test is met, a defendant cannot establish prejudice from the joinder." Id. at ¶ 50. See also Lott at 163, 555 N.E.2d 293 ()
{¶12} Here, the trial court joined seven cases, which involved similar offenses—Gideon was charged with sexual imposition in violation of R.C....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Horenstein, Nicholson & Blumenthal, L.P.A. v. Hilgeman
...Surace v. Wuliger , 25 Ohio St.3d 229, 495 N.E.2d 939 (1986), at syllabus. See also Reister v. Gardner , 164 Ohio St.3d 546, 2020-Ohio-5484, 174 N.E.3d 381, ¶ 10 (affirming the court's "long-established rule that the litigation privilege provides absolute immunity from civil suits for defam......
-
State v. Hathorn
...improper remarks, the results of the trial would have been different. State v. Gideon, 3d Dist. Allen No. 1-18-27, 2021-Ohio-1863, 174 N.E.3d 381. Prosecutors may comment during the summation on the and the reasonable inferences that may be drawn from it. State v. Lott, 51 Ohio St.3d 160, 1......
-
Gideon v. Treglia
... ... as exceptional circumstances. See generally Doc. 4, ... at 4 ... Judge ... Baughman issued an R&R recommending denial of ... Petitioner's motion for release. He found Petitioner ... failed to exhaust all post-conviction remedies at the state ... court level, and failed to show the necessary substantial ... claim of law or exceptional circumstances necessary to ... justify release in a habeas case. See Doc. 7 ... Petitioner ... has since filed an objection to the Report and Recommendation ... ...