Akron v. Perkins

2025-Ohio-5320 · Ohio Court of Appeals, Ninth Judicial District · November 26, 2025 · No. 31292

Summary

The Ninth District Court of Appeals of Ohio affirmed Ladoris Perkins’s conviction for misdemeanor assault in Akron Municipal Court. The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Perkins’s motion for a mistrial based on a prosecutor’s remark concerning whether a knife was referenced in 911 call notes, particularly because the remark was stricken and the jury was instructed to disregard it.

Court
Ohio Court of Appeals, Ninth Judicial District
Writing for the Court
Jill Flagg Lanzinger, Presiding Judge; Sutton, J.; Stevenson, J.
Jurisdiction
Ohio Court of Appeals, Ninth District
Decision date
November 26, 2025
Docket number
31292
Procedural posture
Perkins appealed her municipal-court conviction for first-degree-misdemeanor assault and the denial of her motion for a mistrial based on alleged prosecutorial misconduct.
Standard of review
The denial of a motion for a mistrial based on prosecutorial misconduct is reviewed for abuse of discretion. The court also considered whether any misconduct deprived the defendant of a fair trial and whether the defendant demonstrated that, absent the misconduct, the jury would not have convicted her.
Precedential value
Published Ohio Court of Appeals decision
Parties
Ladoris Perkins v. City of Akron
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

criminal procedureprosecutorial misconductself defenseevidenceappellate procedure

Practice areas

criminal lawcriminal procedureappellate procedureevidence

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the prosecutor committed misconduct by stating before the jury that the dispatch call log did not mention a knife when the call log had not been admitted into evidence.
  2. Whether the prosecutor's remark deprived Perkins of a fair trial and required a mistrial, particularly in light of her self-defense theory.

Holdings

  1. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a mistrial. Even assuming the prosecutor's remark was improper, Perkins failed to show that, absent the misconduct, the jury would not have convicted her or that the remark deprived her of a fair trial.

Key quotations

When a defendant moves for a mistrial based on prosecutorial misconduct, the trial court must determine whether ‘the prosecutor’s actions were improper, and, if so, whether the defendant’s substantial rights were actually prejudiced.’ (¶ 20)
Considering the record as a whole, this Court cannot say that, but for the prosecutor’s remark, the jury would not have convicted Perkins of assault. (¶ 24)

Factual background

Perkins entered Isaiah's apartment after an argument concerning cigarettes and/or money. Witnesses testified that Perkins repeatedly struck and kicked K.V., causing a severe swollen injury to her left eye, while Perkins sustained minor scratches. During trial, defense counsel questioned officers about dispatch call notes allegedly mentioning a knife, and the prosecutor stated before the jury that the call log did not mention a knife. The trial court struck the remark and instructed the jury to disregard it, but the jury convicted Perkins of assault.

Procedural history

Perkins was charged in Akron Municipal Court with assault under Akron City Code 135.03. After a jury trial, the jury found her guilty, and the trial court sentenced her to 180 days in jail with credit for time served. The trial court denied her Crim.R. 29 motion for acquittal and her motion for a mistrial. The Ohio Court of Appeals affirmed.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…

More from Ohio Court Of Appeals Ninth District Ohio Court Of Appeals Ninth Judicial District