State v. Benedict

[Cite as State v. Benedict, 2022-Ohio-3600.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
CRAWFORD COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO,
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, CASE NO. 3-21-08
v.
JOSHUA A.C. BENEDICT, OPINION
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
Appeal from Crawford County Common Pleas Court
Trial Court No. 19-CR-0022A & B
Judgment Affirmed
Date of Decision: October 11, 2022
APPEARANCES:
Mark R. Devan for Appellant
Mathew E. Crall for Appellee
Case No. 3-21-08
ZIMMERMAN, P.J.
{¶1} Defendant-appellant, Joshua A.C. Benedict (“Benedict”), appeals the
September 5, 2019, October 23, 2019, and January 2, 2020 judgment entries of the
Crawford County Court of Common Pleas. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
{¶2} The genesis of this case is Benedict’s sexual activity with a minor child,
M.P. (in 2015), and his taking of a digital image of her female genitalia with his
computer tablet. After M.P. disclosed Benedict’s sexual abuse of her in 2018, an
investigation commenced and Benedict’s tablet was seized. An analysis of that
tablet by law enforcement yielded a digital image of M.P.’s genitalia as well as
additional contraband (i.e., child pornography) involving minor children.
{¶3} On January 8, 2019, the Crawford County Grand Jury indicted Benedict
on the following 130 criminal charges: Counts One and Two for rape in violation
of R.C. 2907.02(A)(1)(b), both first-degree felonies; Count Three for gross sexual
imposition (“GSI”) in violation of R.C. 2907.05(A)(4), a third-degree felony;
Counts Four and Five for pandering obscenity involving a minor in violation of R.C.
2907.321(A)(3), both second-degree felonies; and Counts Six through 130 for
pandering sexually oriented matter involving a minor in violation of R.C.
2907.322(A)(5), all fourth-degree felonies. Importantly, Counts One through Five
arose from events occurring in 2015 and Counts Six through 130 arose from events
-2-
Case No. 3-21-08
occurring in 2018. On January 15, 2019, Benedict appeared for arraignment and
entered not guilty pleas.
{¶4} Benedict filed several pretrial motions including a motion to sever
counts of the indictment, a motion to determine the reliability of the complaining
witness’ testimony (M.P.), and a motion to suppress requesting a Franks hearing.1
The trial court held a hearing on August 12, 2019 regarding the motions. However,
after convening the hearing, the parties and the trial court agreed to continue the
complaining-witness-reliability motion hearing until a later date. Thereafter, the
trial court denied Benedict’s request for severance as well as his Frank’s-hearing
request. Ultimately, on October 21, 2019, the trial court overruled Benedict’s
motion to determine the reliability of the complaining witness.
{¶5} Prior to trial, the State dismissed Counts Five, 13, 17-20, 37, 47, 51-53,
70, 99-130, without prejudice. (Doc. Nos. 121, 122). Additionally, the State
requested to amend Counts One through Four to enlarge the date of the offenses and
to amend Counts 71-98 regarding the digital-image evidence. The trial court
granted both of the State’s requests.
{¶6} Benedict proceeded to a jury trial on April 26, 2021, wherein he was
found guilty of all of the remaining charges. Thereafter, the trial court sentenced
Benedict to two consecutive prison terms of 15 years to life plus 60 months.
1
A Frank’s hearing is a challenge to the validity of the affidavit that supports a search warrant. See Franks
v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 171-172, 98 S.Ct. 2674, 2684-2685 (1978).
-3-
Case No. 3-21-08
{¶7} Benedict filed a timely notice of appeal and raises the following four
assignments of error for our review.
Assignment of Error No. I
The trial court erred in denying Appellant’s motion to sever
Counts 1-5 from Counts 6-98 of the indictment for purposes of
trial depriving him of his constitutional right to a fair trial under
the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States
Constitution and Article I, Sections 10 & 16 of the Ohio
Constitution. (9-5-19, 1-2-20, Judgment Entries).
Assignment of Error No. II
Appellant’s trial counsel was ineffective for failing to properly
challenge the search warrants that issued which were based on
affidavits that lacked probable cause and contained false
information. (May 17, 2019, Motion to Suppress, State’s Ex. J).
Assignment of Error No. III
The trial court erred and denied Appellant his constitutional
rights secured by the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the
United States Constitution and Article I, Section 10 of the Ohio
Constitution to cross-examine an adverse witness on bias,
prejudice, and motive to misrepresent the facts. (Tr. Vol. II, 4-
27-21 at p. 460-461).
Assignment of Error No. IV
The trial court failed to hold a pre-trial taint hearing resulting in
the admission of unreliable testimony that was a product of
suggestive interrogation, multiple interviews, prompting, and
manipulation, in violation of Appellant’s constitutional rights
secured by the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the
United States Constitution and Article I, Sections 10 & 16 of the
Ohio Constitution. (10-23-19, 1-2-20, Judgment Entries).
-4-
Case No. 3-21-08
{¶8} We begin by addressing Benedict’s first assignment of error, followed
by his third assignment of error, then his fourth assignment of error, concluding with
his second assignment of error.
Assignment of Error No. I
The trial court erred in denying Appellant’s motion to sever
Counts 1-5 from Counts 6-98 of the indictment for purposes of
trial depriving him of his constitutional right to a fair trial under
the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States
Constitution and Article I, Sections 10 & 16 of the Ohio
Constitution. (9-5-19, 1-2-20, Judgment Entries).
{¶9} In his first assignment of error, Benedict argues that the trial court erred
by denying his motion to sever the offenses in the indictment. Specifically, Benedict
argues that the trial court should have ordered separate trials for the 2015 offenses
(Counts 1-4) and 2018 offenses (Counts 6-12, 14-16, 21-36, 48-50, 54-69, 71-98).
Standard of Review
{¶10} “Issues of joinder and severance are generally reviewed under an
abuse of discretion standard.” State v. Plott, 3d Dist. Seneca No. 13-15-39, 2017-
Ohio-38, ¶ 52. An abuse of discretion implies that the trial court acted unreasonably,
arbitrarily, or unconscionably. State v. Adams, 62 Ohio St.2d 151, 157 (1980).
However, “[w]hether charges were misjoined in a single indictment in contravention
of Crim.R. 8(A) is an issue of law that this court reviews de novo.” State v. Jeffries,
1st Dist. Hamilton C-170182, 2018-Ohio-2160, ¶ 51, citing State v. Kennedy, 1st
Dist. Hamilton C-120337, 2013-Ohio-4221, ¶ 24. “De novo review is independent,
-5-
Case No. 3-21-08
without deference to the lower court’s decision.” State v. Hudson, 3d Dist. Marion
No. 9-12-38, 2013-Ohio-647, ¶ 27, citing Ohio Bell Tel. Co. v. Pub. Util. Comm. of
Ohio, 64 Ohio St.3d 145, 147 (1992).
Joinder of Offenses
{¶11} “In general, the law favors joining multiple offenses in a single trial if
the offenses charged ‘are of the same or similar character.’” State v. Valentine, 5th
Dist. Fairfield No. 18 CA 27, 2019-Ohio-2243, ¶ 43, quoting State v. Lott, 51 Ohio
St.3d 160, 163 (1990), citing State v. Torres, 66 Ohio St.2d 340 (1981). “[T]wo or
more offenses may be charged in the same indictment if they ‘are of the same or
similar character, or are based on the same act or transaction, or are based on two or
more acts or transactions connected together or constituting parts of a common
scheme or plan, or are part of a course of criminal conduct.’” Id., quoting Crim.R.
8(A); See also R.C. 2941.04. “Where joinder is not appropriate under Crim.R. 8(A)
because the offenses do not meet at least one of the four joinder requirements, the
trial court should grant a motion to sever, even in the absence of prejudice.”
Kennedy at ¶ 24.
{¶12} Joinder “conserves resources by avoiding duplication inherent in
multiple trials and minimizes the possibility of incongruous results that can occur
in successive trials before different juries.” State v. Hamblin, 37 Ohio St.3d 153,
158 (1988). Notwithstanding the public policy favoring joinder, Crim.R. 14 permits
-6-
Case No. 3-21-08
a criminal defendant to request relief from prejudicial joinder (severance) in an
indictment if that defendant establishes “he or she is prejudiced by joinder of
multiple offenses.” State v. LaMar, 95 Ohio St.3d 181, 2002-Ohio-2128, ¶ 49.
To prevail on a motion to sever, a defendant has the burden of
demonstrating that ‘(1) his rights were prejudiced, (2) that at the time
of the motion to sever he provided the trial court with sufficient
information so that it could weigh the considerations favoring joinder
against the defendant’s right to a fair trial, and (3) that given the
information provided to the court, it abused its discretion in refusing
to separate the charges for trial.’
Plott, 2017-Ohio-38, at ¶ 55, quoting State v. Schaim, 65 Ohio St.3d 51, 59 (1992).
“A defendant’s claim of prejudice is negated when: (1) evidence of the other crimes
would have been admissible as ‘other acts’ evidence under Evid.R. 404(B) or (2)
the evidence of each crime joined at trial is simple and direct.” State v. Ahmed, 8th
Dist. Cuyahoga No. 84220, 2005-Ohio-2999, ¶ 22, citing Lott at 163, Schaim at 59,
and State v. Franklin, 62 Ohio St.3d 118, 122 (1991).
{¶13} Under the “other acts” test, the State is required to show that the other
crimes, wrongs, or acts would be admissible for some other purpose other than a
nonpermissible propensity purpose. “‘Evid.R. 404(B) provides that “[e]vidence of
other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in
order to show action in conformity therewith.”’” State v. Bagley, 3d Dist. Allen No.
1-13-31, 2014-Ohio-1787, ¶ 56, quoting State v. May, 3d Dist. Logan No. 8-11-19,
2012-Ohio-5128, ¶ 69, quoting Evid.R. 404(B). “‘However, there are exceptions to
-7-
Case No. 3-21-08
the general rule: “It may, however, be admissible for other purposes, such as proof
of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of
mistake or accident.”’” Bagley at ¶ 56, quoting May at ¶ 69, quoting Evid.R. 404(B).
See also R.C. 2945.59. “‘The list of acceptable reasons for admitting testimony of
prior bad acts into evidence is non-exhaustive.’” Bagley at ¶ 56, quoting State v.
Persohn, 7th Dist. Columbiana No. 11 CO 37, 2012-Ohio-6091, ¶ 23.
{¶14} Under the “joinder” test, the State is simply required to show that
evidence of each crime joined at trial is simple and direct. Valentine, 2019-Ohio-
2243, at ¶ 47. “Evidence is ‘simple and direct’ if (1) the jury is capable of readily
separating the proof required for each offense, (2) the evidence is unlikely to confuse
jurors, (3) the evidence is straightforward, and (4) there is little danger that the jury
would ‘improperly consider testimony on one offense as corroborative of the
other.’” (Citations omitted.) Id. at ¶ 48, quoting State v. Wright, 4th Dist. Jackson
No. 16CA3, 2017-Ohio-8702, ¶ 52. Moreover, the Supreme Court of Ohio has
unequivocally stated, “that ‘when simple and direct evidence exists, an accused is
not prejudiced by joinder regardless of the nonadmissibility of evidence of these
crimes as ‘other acts’ under Evid.R. 404(B).” Id. at ¶ 47, quoting Lott at 163.
{¶15} “Courts have held that evidence of multiple offenses is ‘simple and
direct’ where, for example, the offenses involved different victims, different
incidents or factual scenarios, and different witnesses.” Id. at ¶ 49, citing State v.
-8-
Case No. 3-21-08
Dantzler, 10th Dist. Franklin Nos. 14AP-907 and 14AP-908, 2015-Ohio-3641, ¶ 23
and State v. Lewis, 6th Dist. Lucas Nos. L-09-1224 and L-09-1225, 2010-Ohio-
4202, ¶ 33. “If either the ‘other acts’ test or the ‘simple and direct’ test is met, a
defendant cannot establish prejudice from the joinder.” Id. at ¶ 50. See also Lott at
163.
{¶16} On appeal, Benedict asserts that there are no grounds to join the
offenses against him at trial under Crim.R. 8(A). Specifically, Benedict challenges
whether his acts constituted a common scheme or plan. Therefore, we apply a de
novo standard of review for this portion of his argument, as opposed to an abuse of
discretion, which we discussed above.
{¶17} In our de novo review, we conclude that Benedict’s offenses were not
misjoined in contravention of Crim.R. 8(A). As we have noted previously, offenses
may be joined in a single indictment if they are of the same or similar character, are
based on the same act or transaction, are based on two or more acts or transactions
connected together or constituting parts of a common scheme or plan, or are part of
a course of criminal conduct. The phrase “of the same or similar character” has
been given a broad definition. See Schaim, 65 Ohio St.3d at fn. 6, 1992-Ohio-31(rejecting Schaim’s request for a narrow definition in a case involving charges of
forcible rape, sexual imposition, and GSI against three different victims.)
Importantly, the offenses “need only be similar in nature, ‘not identical in
-9-
Case No. 3-21-08
execution.’” State v. Bennie, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-020497, 2004-Ohio-1264, ¶
17-18, quoting State v. Echols, 128 Ohio App.3d 677, 708 (1st Dist.1998) (Gorman,
J., dissenting). See also State v. Bass, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 12AP-622, 2013-
Ohio-4503, ¶ 9 (concluding that distinctions in the victims, locations, and times of
the offenses “do not mean that the [] offenses [are] of dissimilar character”). Here,
the record before us supports that all of Benedict’s charges are of a same or similar
character, i.e., sex offenses involving minor children. Hence, we need not reach a
determination as to whether the offenses constitute parts of a common scheme or
plan. Thus, this portion of Benedict’s argument is without merit.
{¶18} Benedict next argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion to
sever the 2015 offenses from the 2018 offenses under Crim.R. 14. In particular,
Benedict argues that he is prejudiced by joinder due to the inflammatory nature of
the digital-image-and-video content in the 2018 offenses. To this portion of
Benedict’s argument our standard of review is abuse of discretion, as opposed to de
novo.
{¶19} Significantly, the evidence used by the State to establish the elements
relating to the 2015 and 2018 offenses is simple and direct. Indeed, the crimes
charged involved different minor victims, factual scenarios, and witnesses.
Moreover, the factual scenario of each set of crimes is easily understood,
straightforward, and capable of segregation. At trial, the 2015 and 2018 incidents
-10-
Case No. 3-21-08
were presented in an orderly, chronological manner. Even though the crimes were
investigated together by law enforcement after the discovery of the child-
pornography offenses in 2018, there was very little overlap between the two
incidents, other than, the use of the instrumentality itself, i.e., Benedict’s Samsung
computer tablet. See State v. Echols, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 102504, 2015-Ohio-
5138, ¶ 17. Hence, we conclude that the evidence presented as to the two sets of
offenses was unlikely to confuse jurors or to be improperly considered as
corroborative of each grouping of offenses.
{¶20} Moreover, even though Benedict argued (to the trial court) that he
would have pursued different defenses with different witnesses had the charges been
tried separately, the record supports that Benedict actually raised duplicative
identity theories, bolstered by alibis, as to each grouping of offenses. See State v.
Franklin, 62 Ohio St.3d 118, 123 (1991). Specifically–Benedict argued that
someone else committed the offenses against M.P. and that someone else possessed
the child pornography. To us, Benedict’s assertion that he may have utilized two
different expert witnesses to support his suggestibility assertions (for M.P.’s delayed
disclosure of the 2015 offenses) and as to data extraction and interpretation
(regarding the 2018 offenses) supports our conclusion that each set of offenses are
easily understood and capable of segregation. Further, the need for expert-witness
testimony as to [the various types of evidence] and [their] analysis does not
-11-
Case No. 3-21-08
automatically preclude a simple-and-direct determination. Echols at ¶ 18.
“[E]vidence, although scientific [or technological] in nature and presented through
expert testimony, is simple in its application.” Id. at ¶ 19.
{¶21} Since we have concluded that the evidence used to establish the
elements of Benedict’s offenses is simple and direct, we need not address the more
stringent “other acts” test. Franklin at 123. See also Lott at 163. Consequently,
Benedict cannot establish any prejudice regardless of the admissibility of evidence
of other crimes, wrongs, or acts. See Valentine, 2019-Ohio-2243, at ¶ 50. See also
Lott at 163.
{¶22} Finally and notwithstanding these determinations, the record reveals
that the trial judge instructed the jury to consider each count, and the evidence
applicable to each count, separately. State v. Wilson, 5th Dist. No. 16-CAA-08-
0035, 2017-Ohio-5724, ¶ 53, quoting State v. Freeland, 4th Dist. Ross No.
12CA003352, 2015-Ohio-3410, ¶ 16. The record yields no indication that the jury
disregarded the trial court’s instruction, or demonstrated confusion concerning the
offenses and evidence presented.
{¶23} Upon our review of the record, we conclude that the offenses were not
misjoined in contravention of Crim.R. 8(A) as a matter of law. We further conclude
that since the evidence of the 2015 and 2018 offenses is simple and direct Benedict
-12-
Case No. 3-21-08
has not affirmatively demonstrated prejudice resulting from the joinder of these
offenses for trial.
{¶24} Accordingly, Benedict’s first assignment of error is overruled.
Assignment of Error No. III
The trial court erred and denied Appellant his constitutional
rights secured by the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the
United States Constitution and Article I, Section 10 of the Ohio
Constitution to cross-examine an adverse witness on bias,
prejudice, and motive to misrepresent the facts. (Tr. Vol. II, 4-
27-21 at p. 460-461).
{¶25} In his third assignment of error, Benedict argues that the trial court
erred by denying him the right to cross-examine Detective Robert Burkey
(hereinafter “Det. Burkey”) regarding M.P.’s mother, Kelli C.’s (“Kelli”) bias at
trial. Benedict argues that the trial court’s ruling as to relevancy (restricting Det.
Burkey from testifying about Benedict’s relationship with Kelli) violated his right
of cross-examination as to bias or motive to misrepresent under Evid.R. 616(A).
Standard of Review
{¶26} Both the Supreme Courts of the United States and Ohio have held that
the “‘extent of cross-examination with respect to an appropriate subject of inquiry
is within the sound discretion of the trial court.’” State v. Green, 66 Ohio St.3d 141,
147 (1993), quoting Alford v. United States, 282 U.S. 687, 691, 694, 51 S.Ct. 218,
219-220 (1931). “Thus, when the trial court determines that certain evidence will
be * * * excluded from trial, it is well established that the order or ruling of the court
-13-
Case No. 3-21-08
will not be reversed unless there has been a clear and prejudicial abuse of
discretion.” O’Brien v. Angley, 63 Ohio St.2d 159, 163 (1980). An abuse of
discretion implies that the court’s attitude was unreasonable, arbitrary, or
unconscionable. Adams, 62 Ohio St.2d at 157.
{¶27} The right of cross-examination includes the right to impeach a
witness’s credibility. Green at 147. Under Evid.R. 611(B), “[c]ross-examination
shall be permitted on all relevant matters and matters affecting credibility.”
(Emphasis added.) Under Evid.R. 616(A), “[b]ias, prejudice, interest, or any motive
to misrepresent may be shown to impeach the witness either by examination of the
witness or by extrinsic evidence.” “However, the Confrontation Clause guarantees
only ‘an opportunity for effective cross-examination, not cross-examination that is
effective in whatever way, and to whatever extent, the defense might wish.’”
(Emphasis sic.) State v. Lang, 129 Ohio St.3d 512, 2011-Ohio-4215, ¶ 83, quoting
Delaware v. Fensterer, 474 U.S. 15, 20, 106 S.Ct. 292, 294 (1985). “Trial courts
have ‘wide latitude * * * to impose reasonable limits on such cross-examination
based on concerns about, among other things, harassment, prejudice, confusion of
the issues, the witness’ safety, or interrogation that is repetitive or only marginally
relevant.’” State v. McKelton, 148 Ohio St.3d 261, 2016-Ohio-5735, ¶ 170, quoting
Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673, 679, 106 S.Ct. 1431, 1435 (1986).
-14-
Case No. 3-21-08
{¶28} These principles are further reflected in Evid.R. 611(A), which
provides that “[t]he court shall exercise reasonable control over the mode and order
of interrogating witnesses and presenting evidence so as to (1) make the
interrogation and presentation effective for the ascertainment of the truth, (2) avoid
needless consumption of time, and (3) protect witnesses from harassment or undue
embarrassment.”
Relevancy
{¶29} Evidence is relevant when it has “any tendency to make the existence
of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable
or less probable than it would be without the evidence.” Evid.R. 401. “Evidence
which is not relevant is not admissible.” Evid.R. 402.
Analysis
{¶30} At trial, the following exchange took place between Benedict’s trial
counsel, Det. Burkey, and the trial judge in open court:
[Benedict’s Trial Counsel] Did you do any investigation into
Kelli’s relationship with Josh?
[Det. Burkey] No.
[Benedict’s Trial Counsel] You’re aware that the two of them had
a romantic relationship?
[State of Ohio] Objection, Your Honor, relevance.
-15-
Case No. 3-21-08
[Benedict’s Trial Counsel] Judge, it goes to bias and motive as to
why these folks made up this
allegation.
[State of Ohio] Your Honor, may I approach?
[Trial Court] I’m going to sustain that, and the Jury
is totally to disregard that, that’s
totally improper and that’s my ruling.
[Benedict’s Trial Counsel] Okay, Judge, I apologize.
[Trial Court] Okay.
[Benedict’s Trial Counsel] I do, I apologize.
(Emphasis added.) (Apr. 28, 2021 Tr., Vol. III, at 460-461).
{¶31} Even though the trial court did not set forth its reasoning in sustaining
the State’s objection, it is evident that Det. Burkey’s knowledge of a “romantic
relationship” involving Kelli and Benedict had no probative value in making
Benedict’s alleged criminal acts of rape, GSI, and pandering obscenity involving
M.P. (i.e., facts of consequence) “less probable that it would be without th[at]
evidence.” Evid.R. 401, 402.
{¶32} Importantly, and contrary to Benedict’s objection at trial, Kelli
testified as a witness for the State prior to Det. Burkey, and was never cross-
examined regarding her possible “romantic relationship” with Benedict. Thus,
Benedict failed to pursue the opportunity to impeach Kelli’s credibility as to her
bias or as to her motive to misrepresent under Evid.R. 616(A) during cross-
-16-
Case No. 3-21-08
examination. Instead, Benedict’s trial counsel sought to do so through Det. Burkey,
which was improper under the facts presented. In other words, Benedict missed his
opportunity to set forth any bias of Kelli may have had by virtue of a purported
“romantic relationship”.
{¶33} Therefore, we conclude that the trial court properly excluded evidence
that was not relevant and that constituted improper-impeachment evidence.
Consequently, we conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion in its
evidentiary determination, and Benedict suffered no denial of cross-examination.
{¶34} Therefore, Benedict’s third assignment of error is overruled.
Assignment of Error No. IV
The trial court failed to hold a pre-trial taint hearing resulting in
the admission of unreliable testimony that was a product of
suggestive interrogation, multiple interviews, prompting, and
manipulation, in violation of Appellant’s constitutional rights
secured by the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the
United States Constitution and Article I, Sections 10 & 16 of the
Ohio Constitution. (10-23-19, 1-2-20, Judgment Entries).
{¶35} In his fourth assignment of error, Benedict asserts that the trial court
erred by failing to hold a “pretrial-taint hearing” violating his constitutional rights
under the Confrontation and Due Process Clauses arguably resulting in the
admission of unreliable testimony. Specifically, Benedict avers that the repetitive
suggestive questioning of M.P. by her mother and by Caseworker, Marla Hobson
-17-
Case No. 3-21-08
(at the behest of law enforcement) permitted Benedict to test the reliability of M.P.’s
statements in advance of trial at a pretrial hearing.
Standard of Review
{¶36} “‘A motion in limine is defined as “[a] pretrial motion requesting [the]
court to prohibit opposing counsel from referring to or offering evidence on matters
so highly prejudicial to [the] moving party that curative instructions cannot prevent
[a] predispositional effect on [the] jury.”’” State v. Wild, 2d Dist. Clark No. 2009
CA 83, 2010-Ohio-4751, ¶ 27, quoting State v. French, 72 Ohio St.3d 446, 449
(1995), quoting Black’s Law Dictionary 1014 (6th Ed.1990). “A ruling on a motion
in limine reflects the court’s anticipated treatment of an evidentiary issue at trial
and, as such, is a tentative, interlocutory, precautionary ruling.” (Emphasis sic.)
French at 450. “The established rule in Ohio is that the grant or denial of a motion
in limine is not a ruling on the evidence.” State v. Thompson, 3d Dist. Union Nos.
14-04-34 and 14-04-35, 2005-Ohio-2053, ¶ 26, citing State v. Grubb, 28 Ohio St.3d
199, 200-201 (1986). “In deciding such motions, the trial court is at liberty to
change its ruling on the disputed evidence in its actual context at trial.” Defiance v.
Kretz, 60 Ohio St.3d 1, 4 (1991). Accordingly, “[f]inality does not attach when [a
motion in limine] is granted.” Id., citing Grubb at 201-202.
{¶37} In order to preserve for appeal any error in the trial court’s resolution
of a motion in limine, the objecting party must “seek the introduction of the evidence
-18-
Case No. 3-21-08
by proffer or otherwise” at trial “to enable the court to make a final determination
as to its admissibility.” Grubb at paragraph two of the syllabus. See State v. Brown,
38 Ohio St.3d 305 (1988), paragraph three of the syllabus (“A denial of a motion in
limine does not preserve error for review. A proper objection must be raised at trial
to preserve error.”). Then, “[a]n appellate court will * * * review the correctness
of the trial court’s ruling on the objection rather than the ruling on the motion in
limine.” Wild at ¶ 29, citing State v. White, 4th Dist. Gallia No. 95CA08, 1996 WL
614190, *3 (Oct. 21, 1996) and Wray v. Herrell, 4th Dist. Lawrence No. 93 CA 08,
1994 WL 64293, *3 (Feb. 24, 1994).
Analysis
{¶38} In our review of the record, we construe Benedict’s pretrial-taint
motion to be the functional equivalent of a motion in limine since Benedict sought
a pretrial-admissibility determination by the trial court as to the reliability of M.P.’s
testimony.2 (See Doc. No. 50). Hence, given the nature of the such a motion is
tentative, interlocutory, or precautionary, we review the record to determine if there
was ‘“a contemporaneous objection at trial[]”’”. Bagley, 2014-Ohio-1787, at ¶ 53,
quoting State v. Hancock, 108 Ohio St.3d 57, 2006-Ohio-160, ¶ 59, quoting State v.
Hill, 75 Ohio St.3d 195, 203 (1996). Crucial to Benedict’s argument under this
2
Benedict specifically clarified (in the trial court) that he was challenging reliability and not credibility or
competency. Important to this discussion, M.P. was 9 and 10 at the time of the offenses, 12 at the age of
disclosure, and age 15 at the time of trial.
-19-
Case No. 3-21-08
assignment of error is the fact that the defense did not object to any statements made
by M.P.’s during her testimony. (Apr. 28, 2021 Tr. at 576-623). Therefore, our
review of this assignment of error is limited to plain error. See Crim.R. 52(B).
{¶39} In this assignment of error, Benedict challenges the reliability of
M.P.’s testimony (through his motion in limine) in advance of trial under a theory
of the lack of personal knowledge pursuant to Evid.R. 602. (See Doc. No. 50). For
this proposition, he cited Idaho v. Wright, 497 U.S. 805, 110 S.Ct. 3139 (1990),
State v. Michaels, 642 A.2d 1372 (N.J. 1994), and State v. Muttart, 116 Ohio St.3d
5, 2007-Ohio-5267.
{¶40} We recognize that no Ohio appellate court has followed Michaels or
has independently determined that a pretrial-taint hearing is required if the potential
exists that a minor child witness’s testimony may have been subject to
suggestibility. See State v. Olah, 9th Dist. Lorain No. 01CA007826, 2001-Ohio-
1642, ¶ 18. Further, we distinguish Wright and Muttart on the basis that the issues
before those courts involved questions related to the admissibility of hearsay
evidence (at trial) as opposed to a victim’s personal knowledge. In Wright, the issue
was whether the hearsay statements of the child victim lacked the particularized
guarantees of trustworthiness required for admission under the Confrontation
Clause. Wright, 497 U.S. at 827. The questions before the Supreme Court of Ohio
in Muttart was “whether a child’s out-of-court statements to medical personnel
-20-
Case No. 3-21-08
[were] admissible pursuant to Evid.R. 803(4) in the absence of a judicial
determination of the competency of the child as a witness and whether the admission
of those hearsay statements violated [an] appellant’s Sixth Amendment rights of
confrontation[.]” (Emphasis added.) Muttart, 116 Ohio St.3d 5, 2007-Ohio-5267,
at ¶ 2. M.P. personally testified in court and, as such, the hearsay issues set forth in
Wright and Muttart do not exist.
{¶41} Here, the issue before us on appeal is whether Benedict was entitled
to test the reliability of M.P.’s testimony (in advance of trial) under a theory that she
lacked personal knowledge of Benedict’s actions due to suggestive questioning.3
Evid.R. 602 provides that “[a] witness may not testify to a matter unless evidence is
introduced sufficient to support a finding that the witness has personal knowledge
of the matter. Evidence to prove personal knowledge may, but need not, consist of
the witness’ own testimony.” “‘“Personal knowledge” is “knowledge gained
through firsthand observation or experience, as distinguished from a belief based on
what someone else has said.”’” State v. Teets, 4th Dist. Picakaway No. 17CA21,
2018-Ohio-5019, ¶ 28, quoting Bonacorsi v. Wheeling & Lake Erie Ry. Co., 95 Ohio
St.3d 314, 2002-Ohio-2220, ¶ 26 quoting Black’s Law Dictionary 875 (7th
Ed.Rev.1999). Thus, “‘[t]he subject of a witness’s testimony must have been
3
To the extent that Benedict argues that the trial court’s denial of his motion in limine violates the
Confrontation Clause, his argument is specious. See State v. Wickline, 50 Ohio St.3d 114, 118 (1990) (“The
Confrontation Clause is not a pretrial discovery device”); State v. Ruggles, 12th Dist. Warren Nos. CA2019-
05-038, CA2019-05-044, CA2019-05-045, and CA2019-05-46, 2020-Ohio-2886, ¶ 19.
-21-
Case No. 3-21-08
perceived through one or more of the senses of the witness,’” and “‘a witness is
“incompetent” to testify to any fact “‘unless he or she possesses firsthand
knowledge of that fact.’” Id., quoting Weissenberger’s Ohio Evidence Treatise,
Section 602.1, 213 (2002).
{¶42} Benedict argues what purports to be a question of witness reliability
relative to M.P.’s perception, which he asserts was subjected to suggestive
questioning. However, we conclude that Benedict is really attacking M.P.’s
credibility. At trial, M.P. personally testified and was subject to a vigorous cross-
examination by Benedict’s trial counsel as to her recollection of the events involving
her and Benedict. Thus, it was for the jury to decide whether M.P. was credible or
not capable of belief. Put more plainly–the jury was in the best position to determine
whether or not M.P. was credible.
{¶43} Accordingly, Benedict’s fourth assignment of error is overruled.
Assignment of Error No. II
Appellant’s trial counsel was ineffective for failing to properly
challenge the search warrants that issued which were based on
affidavits that lacked probable cause and contained false
information. (May 17, 2019, Motion to Suppress, State’s Ex. J).
{¶44} In his second assignment of error, Benedict argues that his trial
counsel was deficient in his performance by failing to “properly” challenge the
search warrants related to the Hosford Road Residence and curtilage and the
subsequent search of the Samsung tablet found in Benedict’s camper within that
-22-
Case No. 3-21-08
curtilage. Specifically, Benedict asserts that trial counsel failed to argue that the
affidavits supporting the search warrants lacked probable cause and contained false
information.
Standard of Review
{¶45} A defendant asserting a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel must
establish: (1) the counsel’s performance was deficient or unreasonable under the
circumstances; and (2) the deficient performance prejudiced the defendant. State v.
Kole, 92 Ohio St.3d 303, 306 (2001), citing Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668,
687, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 2064 (1984). A properly licensed attorney is presumed
competent. State v. Hamblin, 37 Ohio St.3d 153, 156 (1988). Therefore, in order to
show trial counsel’s conduct was deficient or unreasonable, the defendant must
overcome the presumption that counsel provided competent representation and must
show that counsel’s actions were not trial strategies prompted by reasonable
professional judgment. Strickland at 687. Counsel is entitled to a strong
presumption that all decisions fall within the wide range of reasonable professional
assistance. State v. Sallie, 81 Ohio St.3d 673, 675 (1998). Tactical or strategic trial
decisions, even if unsuccessful, do not generally constitute ineffective assistance.
State v. Carter, 72 Ohio St.3d 545, 558 (1995). Rather, the errors complained of
must amount to a substantial violation of counsel’s essential duties to his client. See
State v. Bradley, 42 Ohio St.3d 136, 141-42 (1989), quoting State v. Lytle, 48 Ohio
-23-
Case No. 3-21-08
St.2d 391, 396 (1976), vacated in part on other grounds, Lytle v. Ohio, 438 U.S.
910, 98 S.Ct. 3135 (1978).
{¶46} “Prejudice results when ‘there is a reasonable probability that, but for
counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been
different.’” State v. Liles, 3d Dist. Allen No. 1-13-04, 2014-Ohio-259, ¶ 48, quoting
Bradley at 142, citing Strickland at 691. “‘A reasonable probability is a probability
sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.’” Id., quoting Bradley at 142
and citing Strickland at 694.
Analysis
{¶47} On appeal, Benedict presents three assertions that support his
contention that his trial counsel’s performance was deficient or unreasonable. We
will address Benedict’s first and third assertions first since both arguments involve
a challenge to the facial validity of the probable-cause affidavit.
{¶48} In his first and third assertions, Benedict argues that his trial counsel
performance was deficient by failing to assert that the probable-cause affidavit was
facially defective. In his first assertion, Benedict argues that the affidavit did not
establish probable cause to search and seize any electronic devices (and its contents)
at the Hosford Road address since the affidavit did not include a time frame when
the digital image (of M.P.’s vagina) was taken. Benedict argues in his third assertion
that the probable-cause affidavit did not include information regarding the affiant’s
-24-
Case No. 3-21-08
qualifications or experience relating to child-pornography investigations or
experience with child pornographers as a class of offenders.
{¶49} Importantly, the probable-cause affidavit did identify a time frame
when the digital image of M.P. was taken of “one to three years” prior to her 2018
disclosure of Benedict’s sexual abuse. Consequently, this assertion is without merit.
{¶50} Next, we turn to his argument regarding the affiant’s qualifications or
experience. Pointedly, no such requirement to include the affiant’s qualifications
or experience relating to child-pornography investigations nor experience with child
pornographers as a class of offenders exists under the Fourth Amendment to the
United States Constitution, Article I, Section 14 of the Ohio Constitution, the Ohio
Rules of Criminal Procedure, or the Ohio Revised Code. See Crim.R. 41(C); R.C.
2933.23. Typically, this argument is raised in conjunction with a claim of staleness
since some courts have underscored the importance of expert opinions in the
probable-cause affidavit to establish that child-pornography collector’s tend to
retain their collections in secure, private places for extended periods of time. See
State v. Ingold, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 07AP-648, 2008 WL 2026441, ¶ 25.
However, staleness was never raised in the trial court or on appeal. Thus, this
assertion lacks merit.
-25-
Case No. 3-21-08
{¶51} Because we determined that trial counsel’s performance was not
deficient or unreasonable regarding his first and third assertions under the facts of
this case, Benedict cannot establish that he has suffered any prejudice.
{¶52} Finally, we address Benedict’s second assertion. Here, he argues that
trial counsel was deficient by failing to argue the facially valid search-warrant
affidavit contained false statements regarding the location where the digital image
of M.P.’s genitalia was taken. Instead, trial counsel argued the omission of the
affiant regarding the purported suggestive questioning of M.P. and M.P.’s
“unreliable” description of the device.
{¶53} Regardless of where the picture of M.P.’s vagina was taken, the
search-warrant affidavit stated sufficient facts to identify what places law
enforcement could search and what items they should seize. To us, the location of
where the digital image of M.P. was taken is not relevant to the fact that Benedict
had taken an image of M.P.’s genitalia, and that image could be found on his tablet.
Thus, Benedict cannot affirmatively establish prejudice. Consequently, we
conclude that Benedict has not demonstrated that he received ineffective assistance
of counsel.
{¶54} Accordingly, and for the reasons set forth above, Benedict’s second
assignment of error is overruled.
-26-
Case No. 3-21-08
{¶55} Having found no error prejudicial to the appellant herein in the
particulars assigned and argued, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Judgment Affirmed
SHAW and WILLAMOWSKI, J.J., concur.
/jlr
-27-