[Cite as State v. Ealy, 2016-Ohio-1185.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO 

TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

State of Ohio : 

 Plaintiff-Appellee, : 

 No. 15AP-600 

v. : (C.P.C. No. 14CR-2959)

Nicholas L. Ealy, : (REGULAR CALENDAR) 

 Defendant-Appellant. : 

 

D E C I S I O N 

Rendered on March 22, 2016 

 

On brief: Ron O'Brien, Prosecuting Attorney, and Seth L. 

Gilbert, for appellee. 

On brief: Clark Law Office, and Toki Michelle Clark, for 

appellant. 

 

APPEAL from the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas 

SADLER, J. 

{¶ 1} Defendant-appellant, Nicholas L. Ealy, appeals from a judgment of the 

Franklin County Court of Common Pleas convicting him of robbery, in violation of R.C. 

2911.02. For the reasons that follow, we affirm. 

I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY 

{¶ 2} On April 25, 2014, the victim, Ronald Crowder, was beaten and robbed in an 

alley off Miller Avenue in Downtown Columbus. According to his trial testimony, 

Crowder spent the day at a casino on the west side of the city before departing in his 

vehicle with two friends around 2:30 a.m. He dropped off one of his friends in the area of 

James Road and Broad Street and the second at Town Street and Washington Avenue. 
No. 15AP-600 2 

After dropping off his passengers, Crowder took Bryden Road to Miller Avenue in the 

direction of a highway that would take him east to his home in Reynoldsburg. When 

Crowder was driving on Miller Avenue, he saw appellant standing near a vehicle in the 

alley. Crowder had known appellant for a number of years because he was acquainted 

with appellant's ex-girlfriend, and he had purchased drugs from some of their mutual 

friends. Crowder acknowledged at trial that he had suffered from drug addiction in the 

past and had relapsed on or about the time of the assault. He denied that he was under 

the influence of drugs at the time of the robbery.

{¶ 3} Crowder testified that appellant flagged him down as he drove past the 

alley. Believing appellant was in some kind of trouble, Crowder turned down the alley 

toward appellant. He saw two female passengers in a vehicle parked in the surface lot at 

the end of the alley. Crowder pulled his vehicle along side the other vehicle. According to 

Crowder's trial testimony, as soon as he opened his car door to exit his vehicle, appellant 

kicked him in the head and ribs. Crowder testified that, as appellant continued to kick 

him, a woman entered the back seat of his vehicle and began rifling through the center 

console and trying to get in his pockets. Appellant then stole Crowder's keys from the 

ignition and returned to his own vehicle. Appellant and the two women then fled the 

scene in the other vehicle.

{¶ 4} After appellant and the two women left, Crowder walked to a nearby dialysis 

center and asked to use the phone, but he was denied entry. Crowder then walked to a 

pay phone at a gas station on Livingston Avenue and dialed 911 to report the incident. 

Crowder identified appellant as his assailant during that call, and he also told the 911 

dispatcher that a woman had tried to go through his pockets. A recording of the 911 call 

was played for the jury during appellant's trial. 

{¶ 5} Officer Joshua Seymour of the City of Columbus, Division of Police, met 

Crowder at the gas station. At trial, Officer Seymour recalled that Crowder was "having a 

hard time standing, kind of shaken." (Tr. Vol. I, 84.) After a brief interview, Officer 

Seymour drove Crowder to his vehicle and called for a tow truck. Officer Seymour left 

before the tow truck arrived. When Crowder returned to his vehicle, he noticed that a 

sweatshirt had been stolen from the back seat and that a pack of Black & Mild cigars had 

been stolen from the center console. 
No. 15AP-600 3 

{¶ 6} A few days later, Crowder spoke with Detective Thomas Clark on the 

telephone, and he identified appellant as his assailant. When Crowder subsequently 

spoke with Detective Clark at the police station, he was able to identify appellant's 

photograph. Detective Clark then interviewed appellant who told him that he had run 

into Crowder on Miller Avenue on the night in question and that they had gotten into a 

physical altercation over some property that Crowder had previously stolen from 

appellant. Appellant claimed that no one was with him when he fought with Crowder, 

and he denied stealing any of Crowder's property. 

{¶ 7} On June 5, 2014, a Franklin County Grand Jury indicted appellant on one 

count of robbery, in violation of R.C. 2911.02(A)(2), a felony of the second degree, and one 

count of robbery, in violation of R.C. 2911.02(A)(3), a felony of the third degree. A jury 

found appellant guilty of both counts in the indictment. The trial court convicted 

appellant of two counts of robbery and imposed a concurrent prison term of 6 years as to 

Count 1 and 12 months as to Count 2. 

II. ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR 

{¶ 8} Appellant assigns the following as trial court error: 

[1.] THE VERDICT OF GUILTY IS NOT SUPPORTED BY 

LEGALLY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE. 

[2.] THE CONVICTION OF APPELLANT IS AGAINST THE 

MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE. 

[3.] THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT FAILED TO 

GRANT DEFENDANT'S MOTIONS FOR ACQUITTAL. 

[4.] IT IS PLAIN ERROR FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO FAIL 

TO DECLARE A MISTRIAL AFTER A JUROR COMPLAINS 

OF VIEWING THE COURTHOUSE ELECTRONIC 

DOCKETING BOARD AND SEEING DEFENDANT 

SCHEDULED FOR SENTENCING ON ANOTHER 

CRIMINAL CASE. 
No. 15AP-600 4 

III. LEGAL ANALYSIS 

A. First Assignment of Error

{¶ 9} In his first assignment of error, appellant contends the evidence presented 

by plaintiff-appellee, State of Ohio, was insufficient to sustain his robbery convictions. 

We disagree. 

{¶ 10} Sufficiency of the evidence is a legal standard that tests whether the 

evidence is legally adequate to support a verdict. State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 

386 (1997), superseded by constitutional amendment on other grounds as stated in State 

v. Smith, 80 Ohio St.3d 89 (1997). Whether the evidence is legally sufficient to support a 

verdict is a question of law, not fact. Id. In determining whether the evidence is legally 

sufficient to support a conviction, " '[t]he 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.' " State v. 

Robinson, 124 Ohio St.3d 76, 2009-Ohio-5937, ¶ 34, quoting State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 

259 (1991), paragraph two of the syllabus. A verdict will not be disturbed unless, after 

viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution, it is apparent that 

reasonable minds could not reach the conclusion reached by the trier of fact. State v. 

Treesh, 90 Ohio St.3d 460, 484 (2001). 

{¶ 11} Pursuant to R.C. 2911.02, the offense of robbery is defined, in relevant part, 

as follows: 

(A) No person, in attempting or committing a theft offense 

* * * shall do any of the following: 

* * * 

(2) Inflict, attempt to inflict, or threaten to inflict physical 

harm on another; 

(3) Use or threaten the immediate use of force against 

another. 

(B) Whoever violates this section is guilty of robbery. A 

violation of division (A)(1) or (2) of this section is a felony of 

the second degree. A violation of division (A)(3) of this section 

is a felony of the third degree. 
No. 15AP-600 5 

{¶ 12} Our review of the trial testimony reveals that Crowder's testimony alone, if 

believed, is sufficient to support a conviction of robbery. Appellant argues, however, that 

Crowder's trial testimony is so inconsistent with the stories he told Officer Seymour and 

Detective Clark that his testimony is completely unworthy of belief. For example, 

Crowder reportedly told Officer Seymour that he gave appellant a ride just prior to the 

assault, which differs from Crowder's trial testimony. Appellant also points to Officer 

Seymour's testimony that Crowder did not identify appellant as his assailant in his initial 

interview at the gas station, whereas Crowder testified that he did identify appellant at 

that time. Officer Seymour also testified that Crowder told him that the woman in the 

backseat started hitting him with an ice scraper, which was a detail Crowder did not 

mention in his trial testimony. Appellant notes that Crowder testified he dropped one of 

his friends off at his home but that Officer Seymour testified that Crowder told him he had 

taken the friend to a bus stop on East Broad Street. 

{¶ 13} Finally, appellant argues that Crowder's testimony that he first drove one of 

his friends to a location at James Road and Broad Street and then drove the second friend 

to his home at Town Street and Washington Avenue "makes no sense." (Appellant's Brief, 

1.) Given the location of the casino on the west side of the city, appellant argues that it 

"was never explained" why appellant would first stop at James and Broad and then turn 

back to the west toward Town and Washington before turning back again to the east 

toward his home in Reynoldsburg. (Appellant's Brief, 7.) 

{¶ 14} In a sufficiency of the evidence inquiry, appellate courts do not assess 

whether the prosecution's evidence is to be believed but whether, if believed, the evidence 

supports the conviction. State v. Yarbrough, 95 Ohio St.3d 227, 2002-Ohio-2126, ¶ 79-

80 (evaluation of witness credibility not proper on review for sufficiency of evidence); 

State v. Bankston, 10th Dist. No. 08AP-668, 2009-Ohio-754, ¶ 4 (noting that "in a 

sufficiency of the evidence review, an appellate court does not engage in a determination 

of witness credibility; rather, it essentially assumes the state's witnesses testified 

truthfully and determines if that testimony satisfies each element of the crime"). 

Although appellant points to some legitimate inconsistencies between Crowder's pretrial 

statements regarding the robbery and his trial testimony, the inconsistencies are not 

material to the elements of the offense of robbery. Consequently, it was for the jury to 
No. 15AP-600 6 

determine, in light of the inconsistencies, whether each of the elements of the offenses 

was proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Contrary to appellant's claim, when Crowder's 

testimony is viewed in the light most favorable to appellee, the relatively minor 

inconsistencies in his accounts of the events leading up to the assault do not render his 

trial testimony incredible, as a matter of law. Moreover, even if the inconsistencies 

between Crowder's pretrial statements and his trial testimony are resolved in appellant's 

favor, there is no version of Crowder's story that is consistent with appellant's innocence. 

{¶ 15} For similar reasons, appellant's argument that Crowder's account of the 

route he took before meeting appellant "makes no sense" is one of weight and credibility, 

rather than sufficiency. As a general rule, the reasonableness of witness testimony is an 

issue of credibility, not sufficiency. Yarbrough at ¶ 79-80; Bankston at ¶ 4. See also State 

v. Bevins, 1st Dist. No. C-050754, 2006-Ohio-6974, ¶ 39, citing 4 Ohio Jury Instructions, 

Section 405.20 (2005); State v. Ferguson, 11th Dist. No. 2007-A-0059, 2008-Ohio-2392, 

¶ 46, quoting 4 Ohio Jury Instructions, Section 405.20 (2005). Crowder's accounts of the 

events that occurred prior to the robbery are immaterial to the elements of robbery. 

Moreover, appellant admitted in his statement to Detective Clark that he had met 

Crowder on Miller Avenue on the night in question and that the two had fought, but he 

denied robbing Crowder. Thus, Crowder's unusual route of travel prior to the robbery has 

no relevance to appellant's claim of innocence. 

{¶ 16} In the final analysis, we find that the alleged inconsistencies between 

Crowder's pretrial accounts and his trial testimony are matters of weight and credibility, 

rather than sufficiency. Accordingly, appellant's first assignment of error is overruled. 

B. Second Assignment of Error 

{¶ 17} In his second assignment of error, appellant contends his convictions are 

against the manifest weight of the evidence. We disagree. 

{¶ 18} In determining whether a verdict is against the manifest weight of the 

evidence, an appellate court acts as a "thirteenth juror." State v. Cardona, 10th Dist. No. 

10AP-1052, 2011-Ohio-4105, ¶ 23, citing State v. Covington, 10th Dist. No. 02AP-245, 

2002-Ohio-7037, ¶ 22; State v. Hairston, 10th Dist. No. 01AP-1393, 2002-Ohio-4491, 

¶ 17. Under this standard of review, an appellate court weighs the evidence in order to 

determine whether the trier of fact "clearly lost its way and created such a manifest 
No. 15AP-600 7 

miscarriage of justice that the conviction must be reversed and a new trial ordered." Id.,

citing State v. Martin, 20 Ohio App.3d 172, 175 (1st Dist.1983). However, in engaging in 

this weighing, an appellate court must bear in mind the factfinder's superior, first-hand 

perspective in judging the demeanor and credibility of witnesses. State v. Phillips, 10th 

Dist. No. 14AP-79, 2014-Ohio-5162, ¶ 125, citing State v. DeHass, 10 Ohio St.2d 230 

(1967), paragraph one of the syllabus. The power to reverse on manifest-weight grounds 

should only be used in exceptional circumstances when "the evidence weighs heavily 

against the conviction." Thompkins at 387. 

{¶ 19} A defendant is not entitled to a reversal on manifest-weight grounds merely 

because inconsistent evidence was offered at trial. State v. Campbell, 10th Dist. No. 

07AP-1001, 2008-Ohio-4831. " '[W]hile the [factfinder] may take note of the 

inconsistencies and resolve or discount them accordingly, * * * such inconsistencies do 

not render defendant's conviction against the manifest weight or sufficiency of the 

evidence.' " State v. Samatar, 152 Ohio App.3d 311, 2003-Ohio-1639, ¶ 113 (10th Dist.), 

quoting State v. Craig, 10th Dist. No. 99AP-739 (Mar. 23, 2000). 

{¶ 20} As noted above, the inconsistencies between Crowder's accounts of the 

robbery do not involve the elements of the offenses, nor does Crowder's testimony 

regarding his circuitous route of travel prior to the encounter with appellant. Without 

exception, the inconsistencies in his pretrial accounts and his trial testimony involve 

relatively minor details, not the elements of the offenses. Therefore, it was the prerogative 

of the jury to take note of the inconsistencies and resolve or discount them accordingly. 

Id.; Craig. See also State v. Butler, 10th Dist. No. 13AP-360, 2013-Ohio-5397 

(inconsistencies between the rape victim's statements to investigators and her trial 

testimony, such as her ability to describe the length of the knife used by the appellant and 

whether she agreed to go to the appellant's house to smoke marijuana before the rape, are 

but minor details in the series of events which could resolve in determining the victim's 

credibility); State v. Brown, 9th Dist. No. 18591 (Aug. 19, 1998) (inconsistencies in such 

"minor details" as each victim's specific location within the apartment at the time of the 

shooting, what the victims were doing just prior to the shooting, how many men 

accompanied the defendant to the apartment, and when, if ever, they entered the 

apartment do not pertain to the elements of the offenses of aggravated robbery and 
No. 15AP-600 8 

felonious assault; they are matters of weight and credibility for the jury to decide). 

Moreover, during Officer Seymour's direct examination, he testified as follows: 

Q Would it surprise you if there were things that Mr.Crowder 

testified to and stated that are not included in your report? 

A No, sir, it would not. 

Q Why not? 

A Well, given the situation, the lateness of the hour for both 

him and myself and the traumatic experience that he had just 

went through, I would expect for myself to have potentially 

have forgotten to put something in the report or he might 

have forgotten to tell me the specific detail.1

(Tr. Vol. I, 86.) 

{¶ 21} When the prosecutor asked Officer Seymour, during re-direct, about 

possible inconsistencies between Crowder's trial testimony and the details he recorded in 

his report, the following exchange took place: 

Q So things that are in your report, as you stated, would not 

surprise you if Mr. Crowder testified differently to some of 

those items? 

A Correct, it would not surprise me. 

Q Because it was late for him and it was late for you, right? 

A Yes, sir. 

Q So if some of these minor inconsistencies could have gotten 

mixed up? 

A Absolutely. 

(Tr. Vol. I, 96-97.) 

{¶ 22} Our review of the evidence reveals that the material facts related by 

Crowder prior to trial are consistent with his trial testimony. For example, Crowder 

identified appellant as his assailant in the 911 recording that was played to the jury. In 

 

1 Officer Seymour worked third shift, meaning he was on duty from 10:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. on the night of 

the incident. 
No. 15AP-600 9 

Crowder's telephone interview with Detective Clark, he stated that appellant was the man 

who assaulted and robbed him. Additionally, in his subsequent interview at police 

headquarters, Crowder was able to identify appellant's photograph, and he related the 

similar story to Detective Clark that he related in his trial testimony. Although Detective 

Clark testified that the story Crowder gave in the interview was "different" than the story 

he related in the phone call, he maintained that there were "no glaring changes" to 

Crowder's story and that "[i]t was consistent to what he had told me on the phone." (Tr. 

Vol. II, 109.) Moreover, appellant partially corroborates Crowder's trial testimony in his 

statement to Detective Clark. Appellant admitted to Detective Clark that he saw Crowder 

on Miller Avenue on the night in question and that the two got into a fight, though 

appellant denied robbing Crowder. 

{¶ 23} In the final analysis, it was for the jury to determine whether Crowder's 

testimony was believable in spite of the inconsistencies between his pretrial accounts of 

the robbery and his trial testimony. Appellant's counsel was able to raise several of the 

inconsistencies in appellant's accounts of the incident in his cross-examination of 

appellant, Officer Seymour, and Detective Clark. The trial court also admitted Officer 

Seymour's written report of the incident into evidence over the prosecutor's objection. 

Consequently, appellant's counsel made sure that the jury was aware of the 

inconsistencies between Crowder's pretrial statement to Officer Seymour and his trial 

testimony, and the jury had the opportunity to consider those inconsistencies in 

determining the credibility and weight of Crowder's testimony. On this record, we cannot 

say that the jury lost its way in resolving the conflicts in the evidence and in finding 

appellant guilty of robbery. Accordingly, appellant's second assignment of error is 

overruled. 

C. Third Assignment of Error 

{¶ 24} In his third assignment of error, appellant contends that the trial court 

erred when it denied his motion for acquittal.2 We disagree.

 

2 In overruling the motion for acquittal, the trial court stated: "We've had testimony of Mr. Crowder in this 

case. Although he has some credibility issues perhaps that could be exploited by the defense, it's still a 

matter where I don't see that I can say that no rational person could possibly find him credible; and, 

therefore, since he's testified to every element of the criminal offense of robbery, I have to overrule the 

motion." (Tr. Vol. II, 132.) 
No. 15AP-600 10 

{¶ 25} Pursuant to Crim.R. 29(A), on motion of a defendant or on its own motion, 

after the evidence on either side is closed, the trial court "shall order the entry of a 

judgment of acquittal of one or more offenses charged in the indictment * * * if the 

evidence is insufficient to sustain a conviction." "Thus, a Crim.R. 29(A) motion for 

acquittal tests the sufficiency of the evidence." State v. Morock, 10th Dist. No. 14AP-559, 

2015-Ohio-3152, ¶ 17, citing State v. Reddy, 10th Dist. No. 09AP-868, 2010-Ohio-3892, 

¶ 12, citing State v. Knipp, 4th Dist. No. 06CA641, 2006-Ohio-4704, ¶ 11. 

{¶ 26} In overruling appellant's first assignment of error, we determined that 

viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution, a rational trier of fact 

could have found the essential elements of robbery had been proven beyond a reasonable 

doubt. For the same reason, we overrule appellant's third assignment of error. 

D. Fourth Assignment of Error 

{¶ 27} In his fourth assignment of error, appellant maintains that the trial court 

committed plain error when it failed to declare a mistrial when one of the jurors learned 

that appellant was "scheduled for sentencing for another crime." (Tr. Vol. I, 4.) The juror 

in question, juror number 5, read appellant's name on an electronic docketing display 

located outside the courtroom. 

{¶ 28} "The Ohio Supreme Court has declared that '[a] mistrial should not be 

ordered in a cause simply because some error has intervened. The error must 

prejudicially affect the merits of the case and the substantial rights of one or both of the 

parties.' " State v. Griffin, 10th Dist. No. 10AP-902, 2011-Ohio-4250, ¶ 12, quoting 

Tingue v. State, 90 Ohio St. 368 (1914), syllabus. "Moreover, '[m]istrials need be declared 

only when the ends of justice so require and a fair trial is no longer possible.' " Id., 

quoting State v. Franklin, 62 Ohio St.3d 118, 127 (1991). " 'A trial court may grant a 

mistrial sua sponte when there is manifest necessity for the mistrial or when the ends of 

public justice would otherwise be defeated.' " Id., quoting State v. Johnson, 10th Dist. No. 

08AP-652, 2009-Ohio-3383, ¶ 30, citing Cleveland v. Walters, 98 Ohio App.3d 165, 168 

(8th Dist.1994). 

{¶ 29} As a general rule, "[t]he decision whether or not to grant a mistrial rests in a 

trial court's sound discretion." State v. Jones, 10th Dist. No. 12AP-1091, 2014-Ohio-674, 

¶ 10, citing State v. Glover, 35 Ohio St.3d 18 (1988). "[T]he failure to grant a mistrial sua 
No. 15AP-600 11 

sponte is reviewed under the plain-error standard." Griffin at ¶ 13, citing Johnson at ¶ 30. 

"Plain error exists when there is an error that is plain or obvious and affects a substantial 

right." Id., citing Johnson at ¶ 19. 

{¶ 30} Appellee argues that, even if the trial court had erred in failing to declare a 

mistrial, appellant invited or induced the error when he chose not to seek a mistrial after 

the trial court provided appellant with the opportunity to do so. "Invited error prohibits a 

party from 'tak[ing] advantage of an error which he himself invited or induced the trial 

court to make.' " Jones at ¶ 22, quoting Lester v. Leuck, 142 Ohio St. 91 (1943), paragraph 

one of the syllabus. The Supreme Court of Ohio "has found invited error when a party has 

asked the court to take some action later claimed to be erroneous, or affirmatively 

consented to a procedure the trial judge proposed." State v. Campbell, 90 Ohio St.3d 

320, 324 (2000), citing Hal Artz Lincoln-Mercury, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 28 Ohio St.3d 

20, 28 (1986), fn. 16; see also State ex rel. Lowery v. Cleveland, 67 Ohio St.3d 126, 128 

(1993). " '[A] litigant cannot be permitted, either intentionally or unintententionally to 

induce or mislead a court into the commission of an error and then procure a reversal of 

the judgment for an error for which he was actively responsible.' " State v. Chambers, 

10th Dist. No. 99AP-1308 (July 13, 2000), quoting Lester at 93.

{¶ 31} Our review of the transcript of proceedings reveals that the juror in question 

brought the issue to the attention of the trial court before opening statements. When the 

trial court inquired of appellant how he wished to proceed, the following exchange 

occurred: 

[DEFENDANT'S COUNSEL]: Your Honor, I guess my take 

on it would be that we bring out the one juror who sent out 

the note, we inquire of him, as [the prosecutor] said, whether 

there have been any discussion with other jurors, or whether 

he noticed any other jurors noticing it, and things like that, 

talk to him, as the court said, about, you know, there are old 

cases that have nothing to do with this, and assure that the 

juror would not hold it against my client, and then see how 

deep this problem goes. 

THE COURT: Okay. Is that what you–I mean, I know you've 

had a chance to talk about this with your attorney, Mr. Ealy. 

Is that okay with you to do it that way? 
No. 15AP-600 12 

THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir. 

THE COURT: You're comfortable with that? 

THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir. 

* * * 

[DEFENDANT'S COUNSEL]: Your Honor, without disclosing 

anything that's privileged, [appellant] was actually a little 

more comfortable with taking this route than I was when we 

were discussing it back there about talking to the juror and 

seeing how deep this goes and stuff. I do believe he knows 

what he's talking about. He knows what he's doing. 

(Tr. Vol. I, 8-9, 11.) 

{¶ 32} When the juror appeared before the court and the parties, the trial court 

explained to the juror that the information he viewed related to a probation revocation 

hearing and that "[t]he fact that somebody has a prior contact with the judicial system 

* * * has nothing to do with this case." (Tr. Vol. I, 12.) 

{¶ 33} The trial court then asked the juror if the information would impact his 

ability to judge the case "on the evidence and the law in this case and this case only." (Tr. 

Vol. I, 13.) The juror responded as follows: 

JUROR NO. 5: I don't think it'll impact my ability to be fair. 

It just seems– 

THE COURT: Wrong. 

JUROR NO. 5: Wrong, it's unfair for the defendant. 

(Tr. Vol. I, 13.) 

{¶ 34} When the trial court asked the juror whether he had spoken to anyone about 

the information and whether any of the other jurors had seen the information, he 

answered that "[i]f someone has noticed it already, I didn't want to bring it to their 

attention. I haven't talked to anyone else about that." (Tr. Vol. I, 14.) The juror also 

stated that he had not heard any of the other jurors discussing the matter. When the 

prosecutor asked the juror whether he could remain impartial, the juror stated: 
No. 15AP-600 13 

JUROR NO. 5: I'd like to think so, yes. It's difficult to–I'll be 

honest. It's difficult to remove the inherent unfairness from 

what he's going to have to go through, that I understand 

during the course of the trial something may come up that I 

don't know already, that I would have to put aside. I'm 

assuming this would be the same situation. It just seems so 

blatantly unfair. I didn't know if that was normal procedure 

for that to be coming up, and the way it's set up there is no 

way for me to ask anyone– 

[PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL]: Right. 

JUROR NO. 5: – without this. 

[PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL]: So your answer is you really don't 

know. 

JUROR NO. 5: I really don't. I would like to say, yes, it 

doesn't affect. It's also very unfair for the defendant to have 

that happen. 

(Tr. Vol. I, 15-16.) 

{¶ 35} The trial court then gave appellant's counsel an opportunity to question the 

juror. The parties also discussed the possibility that an additional curative instruction 

might be given. The following exchange then took place: 

[DEFENDANT'S COUNSEL]: Your Honor, after consultation 

with my client, we feel that we can go forward, and we feel 

that perhaps as part of the overall jury instructions, that the 

court gives, you know, when you do the normal instruction, 

that the court would instruct them, you know, or at least 

emphasize the instruction about this is about this case, this is 

about the evidence that you heard in this case in this 

courtroom, and nothing else, and not even draw attention to 

the board. It's not going to be up tomorrow. So whatever 

damage is done is done, and my client would like to go 

forward. 

THE COURT: Mr. [Ealy]. 

THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir. 

THE COURT: I'm going to tell you right here and right now, if 

you say you want a mistrial, we'll pick a new jury. We'll get 

that off the board and I'm going to grant you a mistrial and 
No. 15AP-600 14 

we'll start again. But if you are comfortable with what [your 

counsel] has suggested and that he feels you are comfortable 

with going forward, I'll do it. 

THE DEFENDANT: I'm comfortable, sir. 

* * * 

THE COURT: Yeah, what I want to know is are you willing to 

go forward as counsel has discussed with you and we'll just– 

THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir. I'm confident in [my counsel] 

and with the case. 

THE COURT: That's what we'll do. That's what we'll do. So 

let's call the jury in. We'll just proceed. No instructions at this 

point, we'll just proceed and there we go. 

[DEFENDANT'S COUNSEL]: Very good, Your Honor. 

(Emphasis added.) (Tr. Vol. I, 20-21.)3

{¶ 36} The trial transcript shows that appellant and his trial counsel affirmatively 

consented to the procedure the trial court used to determine whether, or to what extent, 

appellant had been prejudiced by the information seen by the juror. It is also evident that 

appellant and his trial counsel fully participated in the chosen procedure by inquiring of 

the juror and joining in discussions regarding the extent of the prejudice to appellant and 

potential curative measures. Although the juror equivocated when asked by the 

prosecutor whether he could perform his duties impartially, appellant and his trial 

counsel agreed to proceed notwithstanding the equivocation and without the need for a 

special curative instruction. Appellant unequivocally agreed to go forward with the trial 

even though the trial court personally informed him that a mistrial would be declared if 

appellant so desired. Thus, the record demonstrates that appellant invited or induced the 

error by affirmatively consenting to the procedure the trial judge proposed and by 

 

3 As part of the instructions given to the jury at the close of the case, the trial court stated: "It would be 

fundamentally unfair to both sides of the case, if the jury considered information that was not presented in 

the courtroom. That's why I instructed you not to use the Internet or social media in an attempt to learn 

about the case or the parties. Only the evidence that was presented here in the courtroom may be considered 

in your deliberations. Anything other than the evidence presented here in the courtroom must be set aside 

and not be considered by you in any way in your deliberations or in reaching your verdict." (Tr. Vol. II, 188.) 
No. 15AP-600 15 

subsequently expressing his desire to go forward with the trial after being offered the 

option of a mistrial. Pursuant to the invited-error doctrine, appellant may not take 

advantage of an alleged error that he induced or invited the trial court to make, even a 

claim of plain error. See State v. Jennings, 10th Dist. No. 09AP-70, 2009-Ohio-6840, 

¶ 75, citing State v. Bogovich, 10th Dist. No. 07AP-774, 2008-Ohio-3100, ¶ 10. 

{¶ 37} For the foregoing reasons, appellant's fourth assignment of error is 

overruled. 

IV. CONCLUSION 

{¶ 38} Having overruled each of appellant's assignments of error, we affirm the 

judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas. 

Judgment affirmed.

TYACK and BROWN, JJ., concur. 

_________________