State v. Mohamed

Summary

The Supreme Court of Ohio held that “harm” under the safe-place-unharmed provision of Ohio’s kidnapping statute includes both physical and psychological harm. The court further held that defense counsel was not ineffective for failing to request a corresponding jury instruction because the omission was a reasonable trial strategy, and that the trial court did not commit plain error by failing to provide the unrequested instruction. The court reversed the appellate judgment and remanded for consideration of the consecutive-sentences assignment of error.

Holdings

1. The term "harm" includes both physical and psychological harm for purposes of determining whether a kidnapping victim was released in a safe place unharmed.
2. Counsel was not ineffective for failing to request a safe-place-unharmed jury instruction.
3. The trial court did not commit plain error by failing to provide the safe-place-unharmed instruction sua sponte.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the term "harm" in the safe-place-unharmed provision of Ohio Revised Code 2905.01(C)(1) includes psychological harm as well as physical harm.
2. Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to request a jury instruction on the safe-place-unharmed provision.
3. Whether the trial court committed plain error by failing to provide the unrequested safe-place-unharmed instruction.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded