Summary
The Ohio Second District Court of Appeals affirmed Precious Carmichael’s convictions for strangulation and child endangering. The court rejected challenges concerning jury instructions on reasonable parental discipline, prior-bad-acts evidence, the sufficiency and manifest weight of the evidence, and ineffective assistance of counsel.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the trial court erred by refusing to instruct the jury on reasonable parental discipline as an affirmative defense to strangulation and child endangering.
- Whether the trial court abused its discretion by admitting or refusing to exclude the challenged statement from the child's forensic interview under Evid.R. 404(B).
- Whether legally sufficient evidence supported the strangulation and child-endangering convictions and whether those convictions were against the manifest weight of the evidence.
- Whether Carmichael received ineffective assistance of trial counsel.
Holdings
- The trial court did not abuse its discretion by refusing the requested instructions. Carmichael denied committing the act constituting strangulation rather than admitting the offense and seeking to avoid liability through an affirmative defense, and she did not show that the evidence supported the requested instruction as to either charge. The court expressly did not decide whether reasonable parental discipline could theoretically be an affirmative defense to strangulation.
- The trial court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to exclude the child's statement under Evid.R. 404(B). In context, the child's statement that only her mother had done that was more reasonably understood to mean that the charged choking incident was the only such incident, rather than an allegation of other choking incidents offered to show propensity.
- The strangulation conviction was supported by legally sufficient evidence and was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.
- The child-endangering conviction was supported by legally sufficient evidence and was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.
- Carmichael failed to establish ineffective assistance of counsel because she identified neither deficient performance nor resulting prejudice.
Key quotations
“An affirmative defense “is in the nature of a ‘confession and avoidance,’ in which the defendant admits the elements of the crime, but seeks to prove some additional fact that absolves the defendant of guilt.”” (¶ 10)
“The relevant inquiry is whether, after viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt.” (¶ 18)
“To prevail on an ineffective-assistance claim, a defendant must show that trial counsel rendered deficient performance and that the deficient performance prejudiced the defense.” (¶ 30)
Factual background
Carmichael disciplined her six-year-old daughter after accusing the child of lying about an allegation that she had been dancing improperly. Carmichael struck the child multiple times with a charger cord, including on the face, and later dragged her down stairs, straddled her back, and placed her hands around the back of the child's neck. The child testified that she could not breathe, felt close to fainting, and sustained bruising; medical evidence documented bruising and abrasions, and the child continued receiving mental-health counseling.
Procedural history
A Montgomery County grand jury indicted Carmichael for strangulation and child endangering arising from her discipline of her six-year-old daughter. Carmichael initially pleaded guilty but later withdrew the plea. After the trial court denied her requested reasonable-parental-discipline instructions and overruled her motion in limine concerning prior-bad-acts evidence, a jury found her guilty, and the court imposed community-control sanctions with local incarceration. The Court of Appeals affirmed.