State v. Peasley

Summary

The Ninth District Court of Appeals of Ohio affirmed Jeffery Peasley’s convictions arising from the shooting death of R.Z. The court held that Peasley forfeited review of challenges to the self-defense jury instructions by failing to object, rejected his hearsay and Confrontation Clause arguments, found no ineffective assistance of counsel, and determined that sufficient evidence supported the murder and disrupting-public-service convictions.

Holdings

1. Peasley forfeited all but plain error because he did not object to the jury instructions before the jury retired, and the record did not affirmatively show that the trial court had been fully apprised of the correct law on the disputed issues. Because Peasley did not argue plain error, the court overruled the first three assignments of error.
2. The court found no reversible error. Peasley failed to develop a plain-error argument concerning testimony about the motorcycle owner's statements; he identified no out-of-court statement in the testimony concerning D.S.; and the Confrontation Clause was not violated by testimony concerning J.V.'s statements because J.V. testified at trial and was vigorously cross-examined. The court also found no prejudicial improper vouching.
3. Peasley failed to establish ineffective assistance of counsel because the evidence showed that R.Z. had a right to be in the residence. Under R.C. 2901.05(B)(3), that circumstance negated the statutory presumption of self-defense in R.C. 2901.05(B)(2), so counsel was not deficient for failing to request the instruction.
4. The evidence was sufficient to support Peasley's conviction for purposeful murder under R.C. 2903.02(A). Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, the jury could reasonably infer purposeful intent from Peasley's use of a shotgun at close range against an unarmed person, his firing additional shots as R.Z. attempted to flee, and his subsequent refusal to provide aid.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the trial court committed reversible error by failing to give or allegedly misstating jury instructions concerning self-defense, the duty to retreat, the statutory presumption of self-defense, and unanimity.
2. Whether the trial court improperly admitted a detective's testimony concerning out-of-court statements and allowed the detective to vouch for another witness.
3. Whether Peasley received ineffective assistance of counsel because counsel did not request an instruction concerning the statutory presumption of self-defense.
4. Whether sufficient evidence supported Peasley's convictions for disrupting public services and purposeful murder under R.C. 2903.02(A).

Disposition

affirmed