State of Ohio v. Donald Capps

Summary

The Fifth District Court of Appeals of Ohio affirmed Donald Capps's convictions for two counts of felonious assault and attendant firearm specifications arising from his shooting of his daughter. The court rejected challenges concerning peremptory challenges, ineffective assistance of counsel, jury instructions on defense of residence or property, post-arrest silence, manifest weight of the evidence, and cumulative error.

Holdings

1. Crim.R. 12.2's requirement that a defendant give written notice of an intended defense of residence or property is mandatory. Because Capps's notice disclosed only self-defense and defense of others, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by enforcing the rule and refusing the requested instruction.
2. The testimony that Capps was Mirandized and wanted a lawyer violated his constitutional right against self-incrimination, but the unobjected-to error did not constitute plain error and was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
3. Capps failed to establish ineffective assistance of counsel because he did not show that counsel's alleged deficiencies caused a reasonable probability of a different result.
4. The convictions were not against the manifest weight of the evidence because the jury did not clearly lose its way in finding that the State disproved Capps's claims of self-defense, defense of another, and defense of residence beyond a reasonable doubt.
5. Cumulative error did not require reversal because the alleged errors were harmless or nonexistent and did not cumulatively deprive Capps of a fair trial.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the trial court erred by enforcing Crim.R. 12.2 and refusing to instruct the jury on defense of residence and property when Capps's notice identified only self-defense and defense of others.
2. Whether admission of testimony that Capps invoked his right to counsel after receiving Miranda warnings violated his constitutional right against self-incrimination and required reversal under plain-error review.
3. Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the 9-1-1 calls, testimony concerning Capps's post-arrest silence, body-camera footage, and the refusal to give a defense-of-residence/property instruction.
4. Whether Capps's convictions were against the manifest weight of the evidence because the State failed to disprove self-defense, defense of another, or defense of residence beyond a reasonable doubt.
5. Whether cumulative error deprived Capps of a fair trial.
6. Whether the first assignment of error concerning peremptory challenges required reversal; counsel withdrew that assignment at oral argument, and the court did not address it.

Disposition

affirmed