[Cite as State v. Nian, 2016-Ohio-5146.]

COURT OF APPEALS 

DELAWARE COUNTY, OHIO 

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

STATE OF OHIO : JUDGES: 

 : 

 : Hon. W. Scott Gwin, P.J. 

 Plaintiff-Appellee : Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, J. 

 : Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, J. 

-vs- : 

 : Case No. 15CAA070052 

 : 

ABULAY NIAN : 

 : 

 : 

 Defendant-Appellant : O P I N I O N 

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Delaware County Court 

of Common Pleas, Case No. 14 CR I 11 

0522 

JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED 

DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: July 25, 2016 

APPEARANCES: 

For Plaintiff-Appellee: For Defendant-Appellant: 

 

CAROL HAMILTON O’BRIEN DAVID E. STENSON 

DELAWARE CO. PROSECUTOR Suite 316 

MARK C. SLEEPER 131 North Ludlow Street 

140 North Sandusky St. Dayton, OH 45402 

Delaware, OH 43015 

 
Delaware County, Case No. 15CAA070052 2 

Delaney, J. 

{¶1} Appellant Abulay Nian appeals from the June 16, 2015 Judgment Entry of 

Prison Sentence of the Delaware County Court of Common Pleas. Appellee is the state 

of Ohio. 

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY 

{¶2} At the time of these events, victim Jane Doe was 17 years old and lived with 

her Mother and two brothers in Delaware County, Ohio. To avoid disclosure of the identity 

of the sexual-assault victim and minor witnesses, the brothers will be referred to as John 

Doe and Richard Roe. John Doe is mentally disabled and requires the assistance of an 

“independent co-worker,” a home health aide who helps him with independent living skills. 

Richard Roe was age 15. 

{¶3} On November 15, 2014, Mother, the three children, and appellant were in 

the home. Appellant had worked with the family for approximately two weeks as John 

Doe’s home health aide. He was employed through an agency Mother found with the 

assistance of the Delaware County Disabilities Board. Appellant spent several hours with 

John Doe five days a week, helping him with chores and tasks of independent living such 

as laundry and cooking. During those two weeks, appellant and John Doe would often 

“hang out” in John Doe’s bedroom, listening to music. Jane Doe and Richard Roe would 

join them in listening to music or in going to a park to play basketball. 

{¶4} On this date, appellant came downstairs and exited the house to retrieve 

his time sheet from his car. Mother and Richard Roe were in the downstairs living room. 

Mother signed off on the time sheet. Appellant went back upstairs and Mother assumed 

he was saying goodbye to John Doe. 
Delaware County, Case No. 15CAA070052 3 

{¶5} Jane Doe was in her bedroom watching Netflix when appellant knocked on 

her door. He came into her bedroom and asked for a hug. Jane agreed and stood to hug 

appellant. He tried to kiss her and put his hand on her “private area.” Jane was wearing 

leggings and a sports bra. She testified appellant first put his hand on her vagina on top 

of the leggings. Appellant started kissing her neck and she asked him to stop. She said 

he stuck his hand inside the leggings and touched her vagina. She asked him to leave. 

Appellant then pulled the leggings down to her knees and placed his mouth on her vagina. 

Jane Doe described appellant gripping her thighs and said his mouth made contact with 

her genitals. Jane Doe pushed appellant’s head away and appellant left the room. 

{¶6} Mother observed appellant leave the house. Richard Roe went upstairs 

and discovered his sister “curled up in a ball” crying in her bedroom. She was FaceTiming 

with a friend and testified she told the friend and her brother what happened and asked 

what she should do. Richard Roe said Mother had to be told. He and Jane Doe told 

Mother what happened and she called the Delaware County Sheriff’s Department 

immediately. Mother also called the agency which employed appellant and left a 

message instructing the agency not to permit appellant to return to their home. 

{¶7} A deputy came to the house, took a report, collected the clothes Jane Doe 

had been wearing, and instructed her to go to Nationwide Children’s Hospital for a sexual 

assault examination. A rape kit was collected at the hospital and submitted to B.C.I for 

forensic analysis. 

{¶8} A forensic biologist found amylase, a component of saliva, on the interior 

crotch of Jane Doe’s leggings. A cutting from the area yielded a mixture of D.N.A.; Jane 

Doe was the major contributor and the comparison with appellant’s D.N.A. was 
Delaware County, Case No. 15CAA070052 4 

inconclusive. A swabbing of the area, however, also yielded a mixture of D.N.A., with 

Jane Doe as the major contributor and appellant included as the minor contributor. 

{¶9} Appellant was charged by indictment with two counts of forcible rape 

pursuant to R.C. 2907.02(A)(2), both felonies of the first degree. Appellant entered pleas 

of not guilty and the case proceeded to trial by jury. Upon the close of appellee’s 

evidence, appellant moved for acquittal upon Count I, forcible rape by digital penetration, 

pursuant to Crim.R. 29(A). The trial court sustained the motion as to Count I, but overruled 

the motion as to Count II, forcible rape by cunnilingus. 

{¶10} Appellant was found guilty upon Count II. 

{¶11} On May 13, 2015, appellant filed a motion for new trial based upon jury 

misconduct. The motion was accompanied by an affidavit of a juror stating that during 

deliberations, another juror “introduced into the discussions facts about [appellant] being 

from Sierra Leone and having a prior record,” facts allegedly obtained from newspaper 

accounts of the trial. Appellee responded with a motion in opposition. 

{¶12} The trial court overruled the motion for new trial on June 3, 2015 and the 

matter proceeded to sentencing on June 15, 2015. The trial court imposed a prison term 

of 5 years and determined appellant to be a Tier III sex offender. 

{¶13} Appellant now appeals from the trial court’s June 16, 2015 judgment entry 

of conviction and sentence. 

{¶14} Appellant raises nine assignments of error: 

ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR 

{¶15} “I. APPELLANT’S CONVICTION IS AGAINST THE SUFFICIENCY OF 

THE EVIDENCE AS A MATTER OF LAW.” 
Delaware County, Case No. 15CAA070052 5 

{¶16} “II. APPELLANT’S CONVICTION IS AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT 

OF THE EVIDENCE.” 

{¶17} “III. PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT DENIED APPELLANT A FAIR 

TRIAL AND DUE PROCESS OF LAW, IN VIOLATION OF HIS FIFTH, SIXTH, AND 

FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS UNDER THE UNITED STATES 

CONSTITUTION AND SECTIONS 10 AND 16, ARTICLE I OF THE OHIO 

CONSTITUTION.” 

{¶18} “IV. APPELLANT WAS DENIED DUE PROCESS OF LAW THROUGH 

THE TRIAL COURT’S ERRONEOUS BELIEF THAT SENTENCING WAS 

MANDATORY.” 

{¶19} “V. APPELLANT WAS DENIED HIS RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL AND 

IMPARTIAL PANEL OF JURORS AS GUARANTEED UNDER THE SIXTH 

AMENDMENT OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND SECTION 10, ARTICLE 

I OF THE OHIO CONSTITUTION AS THE RESULT OF JURORS’ IMPROPER 

CONSIDERATION OF EXTRANEOUS INFORMATION AND THE TRIAL COURT’S 

REFUSAL TO GRANT APPELLANT A NEW TRIAL.” 

{¶20} “VI. TRIAL COUNSEL RENDERED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE IN 

VIOLATION OF APPELLANT’S RIGHTS UNDER THE FIFTH, SIXTH, AND 

FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND 

SECTIONS 10 AND 16, ARTICLE I OF THE OHIO CONSTITUTION.” 

{¶21} “VII. THE COURT ERRED IN INSTRUCTING JURORS TO STRIKE 

INFORMATION THEY HAD HEARD FROM DEFENSE COUNSEL.” 
Delaware County, Case No. 15CAA070052 6 

{¶22} “VIII. THE COURT ERRED IN INSTRUCTING JURORS WITH A 

CONCLUSORY STATEMENT THAT APPELLANT COMMITTED THE CRIME WITH 

WHICH HE WAS ACCUSED.” 

{¶23} “IX. THE CUMULATIVE EFFECT OF THE FOREGOING ERRORS 

DENIED APPELLANT A FAIR TRIAL.” 

ANALYSIS 

I., II. 

{¶24} Appellant’s first and second assignments of error are related and will be 

considered together. Appellant argues his conviction upon one count of rape is against 

the manifest weight and sufficiency of the evidence. We disagree. 

{¶25} The legal concepts of sufficiency of the evidence and weight of the evidence 

are both quantitatively and qualitatively different. State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 

1997-Ohio-52, 678 N.E.2d 541, paragraph two of the syllabus. The standard of review 

for a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence is set forth in State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio 

St.3d 259, 574 N.E.2d 492 (1991) at paragraph two of the syllabus, in which the Ohio 

Supreme Court held, “An appellate court’s function when reviewing the sufficiency of the 

evidence to support a criminal conviction is to examine the evidence admitted at trial to 

determine whether such evidence, if believed, would convince the average mind of the 

defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. 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.” 

{¶26} Appellee argues appellant failed to preserve the issue of the sufficiency of 

the evidence because he did not make a motion for acquittal pursuant to Crim.R. 29(A) 
Delaware County, Case No. 15CAA070052 7 

as to Count II, only to Count I. T. 275. As the trial court noted, Count I was premised 

upon the act of digital penetration and Count II upon the act of cunnilingus. In granting 

appellant’s motion for acquittal as to Count I, the trial court found insufficient evidence of 

penetration. (T. II, 178). In State v. Brown, 5th Dist. Licking No.2006–CA–53, 2007–

Ohio–2005 at ¶ 36, we noted failure to timely file a Crim.R. 29(A) motion during a jury trial 

does not waive an argument on appeal concerning the sufficiency of the evidence. Thus, 

for purposes of this review, we do not consider appellant to have waived his right to argue 

sufficiency of the evidence on appeal. State v. Lee, 5th Dist. Richland No. 15-CA-52, 

2016-Ohio-1045, ¶ 30. 

{¶27} In determining whether a conviction is against the manifest weight of the 

evidence, the court of appeals functions as the “thirteenth juror,” and after “reviewing the 

entire record, weighs the evidence and all reasonable inferences, considers the credibility 

of witnesses and determines whether in resolving conflicts in the evidence, the jury clearly 

lost its way and created such a manifest miscarriage of justice that the conviction must 

be overturned and a new trial ordered.” State v. Thompkins, supra, 78 Ohio St.3d at 387. 

Reversing a conviction as being against the manifest weight of the evidence and ordering 

a new trial should be reserved for only the “exceptional case in which the evidence weighs 

heavily against the conviction.” Id.

{¶28} Appellant was found guilty of one count of rape pursuant to R.C. 

2907.02(A)(2), which states, “No person shall engage in sexual conduct with another 

when the offender purposely compels the other person to submit by force or threat of 

force.” R.C. 2907.01(A) defines “sexual conduct” in pertinent part as * * * cunnilingus 

between persons regardless of sex; and, without privilege to do so, the insertion, however 
Delaware County, Case No. 15CAA070052 8 

slight, of any part of the body or any instrument, apparatus, or other object into the vaginal 

or anal opening of another. Penetration, however slight, is sufficient to complete vaginal 

or anal intercourse.” The trial court defined cunnilingus as “a sexual act committed with 

the mouth and the female [sex] organ.”1 As acknowledged by appellant in his brief, Jane 

Doe testified appellant’s mouth made contact with her vagina. T. 155. 

{¶29} Nonetheless, appellant argues the evidence of the act of cunnilingus as 

described by the victim at trial is insufficient to sustain his rape conviction because the 

conduct described does not rise to the level of “sexual conduct” pursuant to R.C. 

2907.01(A); the testimony did not indicate whether the contact was “intentional” and there 

is no indication the act was committed for stimulation or sexual pleasure. We note the 

statutory definitions of “rape” and “sexual conduct” require no such elements, nor did the 

jury instruction upon the meaning of “cunnilingus,” to which appellant did not object. We 

find the act described by the victim sufficiently describes an act of forcible cunnilingus. 

See, State v. Dippel, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 03AP-448, 2004-Ohio-4649. 

{¶30} Appellant argues his rape conviction is against the manifest weight of the 

evidence because there is no evidence he intended to place his mouth on the victim’s 

vagina and there is no evidence the act was committed for sexual pleasure. We note, 

however, the victim testified the act was committed after appellant had forcibly kissed her, 

pulled down her leggings, and held her in place with his hands “gripping” her thighs. It is 

well-established that the weight of the evidence and the credibility of the witnesses are 

 

1 The word “sex” was initially omitted from the jury instructions. The trial court advised 

the parties the instruction given to the jurors would be corrected to define cunnilingus as 

“a sexual act committed with the mouth and the female [sex] organ.” 
Delaware County, Case No. 15CAA070052 9 

determined by the trier of fact. State v. Yarbrough, 95 Ohio St.3d 227, 231, 2002-Ohio2126, 767 N.E.2d 216. 

{¶31} Appellant further argues the physical evidence does not support his 

conviction, but as appellee points out, amylase, an enzyme found in the highest 

concentrations of saliva, was found on the inner crotch area of the leggings. A swab from 

the same surface contained appellant’s D.N.A. While the forensic expert could not testify 

the amylase specifically came from appellant because amylase does not contain D.N.A., 

it is circumstantial evidence that supports the victim’s testimony. We are mindful, 

moreover, that “[c]orroboration of victim testimony in rape cases is not required.” State v. 

Meeks, 5th Dist. No. 2014CA00017, 2015-Ohio-1527, 34 N.E.3d 382, ¶ 81, appeal not 

allowed, 143 Ohio St.3d 1543, 2015-Ohio-4633, 40 N.E.3d 1180, citing State v. Cuthbert,

5th Dist. Delaware No. 11CAA070065, 2012-Ohio-4472, 2012 WL 4474720, ¶ 28 and 

State v. Johnson, 112 Ohio St.3d 210–217, 2006-Ohio-6404, 858 N.E.2d 1144, at ¶ 53. 

{¶32} We find that this is not an “‘exceptional case in which the evidence weighs 

heavily against the conviction.’“ Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d at 387, quoting Martin, 20 Ohio 

App.3d at 175. The jury neither lost its way nor created a miscarriage of justice in 

convicting appellant upon one count of rape. Appellant’s first and second assignments 

of error are overruled. 

III. 

{¶33} In his third assignment of error, appellant argues he was deprived of a fair 

trial by numerous instances of prosecutorial misconduct. We disagree. 

{¶34} The test for prosecutorial misconduct is whether the prosecutor's remarks 

and comments were improper and if so, whether those remarks and comments 
Delaware County, Case No. 15CAA070052 10 

prejudicially affected the substantial rights of the accused. State v. Lott, 51 Ohio St.3d 

160, 166, 555 N.E.2d 293 (1990), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 1017, 111 S.Ct. 591, 112 L.Ed.2d 

596 (1990). In reviewing allegations of prosecutorial misconduct, we must review the 

complained-of conduct in the context of the entire trial. Darden v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 

168, 184, 106 S.Ct. 2464, 91 L.Ed.2d 144 (1986). Prosecutorial misconduct will not 

provide a basis for reversal unless the misconduct can be said to have deprived appellant 

of a fair trial based on the entire record. Lott, supra, 51 Ohio St.3d at 166, 555 N.E.2d 

293. 

{¶35} Appellant cites a number of instances of alleged prosecutorial misconduct 

throughout the trial. We note appellant did not object to any of these comments at trial. If 

trial counsel fails to object to the alleged instances of prosecutorial misconduct, the 

alleged improprieties are waived, absent plain error. State v. White, 82 Ohio St.3d 16, 22, 

1998–Ohio–363, 693 N.E.2d 772 (1998), citing State v. Slagle, 65 Ohio St.3d 597, 604, 

605 N.E.2d 916 (1992). 

{¶36} We therefore review appellant's allegations under the plain-error standard. 

Pursuant to Crim.R. 52(B), “plain errors or defects affecting substantial rights may be 

noticed although they were not brought to the attention of the court.” The rule places 

several limitations on a reviewing court's determination to correct an error despite the 

absence of timely objection at trial: (1) “there must be an error, i.e., a deviation from a 

legal rule,” (2) “the error must be plain,” that is, an error that constitutes “an ‘obvious' 

defect in the trial proceedings,” and (3) the error must have affected “substantial rights” 

such that “the trial court's error must have affected the outcome of the trial.” State v. Dunn,

5th Dist. No.2008–CA–00137, 2009–Ohio–1688, citing State v. Morales, 10 Dist. Nos. 
Delaware County, Case No. 15CAA070052 11 

03-AP-318, 03-AP-319, 2004-Ohio-3391, at ¶ 19. The decision to correct a plain error is 

discretionary and should be made “with the utmost caution, under exceptional 

circumstances and only to prevent a manifest miscarriage of justice.” State v. Long, 53 

Ohio St.2d 91, 372 N.E.2d 804 (1978), paragraph three of the syllabus. 

{¶37} Appellant asserts the prosecutor mischaracterized the victim’s testimony in 

closing argument but we disagree. In closing argument, a prosecutor may comment on 

“what the evidence has shown and what reasonable inferences may be drawn therefrom.” 

State v. Young, 5th Dist. Richland No. 14CA25, 2015-Ohio-2075, ¶ 25, citing Lott, supra, 

51 Ohio St.3d at 165. The summary of the victim’s testimony cited here is a fair comment 

on the evidence. 

{¶38} Appellant alleges the prosecutor “provided inaccurate sentencing 

information to the court,” to wit, that the rape conviction implicated a mandatory prison 

sentence pursuant to R.C. 2929.13(F)(2).2 Appellant cites and repeats the section in his 

brief but argues the mandatory prison term does not apply because the victim is not under 

13 years of age and the indictment did not contain a sexually-violent predator 

 

2 R.C. 2929.13(F)(2) states: Notwithstanding divisions (A) to (E) of this section, the 

court shall impose a prison term or terms under sections 2929.02 to 2929.06, section 

2929.14, section 2929.142, or section 2971.03 of the Revised Code and except as 

specifically provided in section 2929.20, divisions (C) to (I) of section 2967.19, or section 

2967.191 of the Revised Code or when parole is authorized for the offense under section 

2967.13 of the Revised Code shall not reduce the term or terms pursuant to section 

2929.20, section 2967.19, section 2967.193, or any other provision of Chapter 2967. or 

Chapter 5120. of the Revised Code for any of the following offenses: 

(2) Any rape, regardless of whether force was involved and regardless of the age 

of the victim, or an attempt to commit rape if, had the offender completed the rape that 

was attempted, the offender would have been guilty of a violation of division (A)(1)(b) of 

section 2907.02 of the Revised Code and would be sentenced under section 2971.03 of 

the Revised Code[.] 
Delaware County, Case No. 15CAA070052 12 

specification. These are not elements of a mandatory prison term for rape and the 

prosecutor did not misstate the sentencing terms. 

{¶39} Appellant argues the prosecutor improperly impugned defense trial counsel 

but we disagree with the characterization of the statements. “Prosecutors are entitled to 

respond, fairly, to arguments of the defense.” State v. Young, 5th Dist. Richland No. 

14CA25, 2015-Ohio-2075, ¶ 30. The prosecutor did not impugn counsel. 

{¶40} Appellant summarily argues the prosecutor committed several other acts of 

misconduct but upon our review of the record, we disagree that the statements were 

improper, much less that “absent the prosecutor's comments, the jury would not have 

found defendant guilty.” State v. Clay, 181 Ohio App.3d 563, 2009–Ohio–1235, 910 

N.E.2d 14 at ¶ 49 (8th Dist.), citing State v. Smith, 14 Ohio St.3d 13, 470 N.E.2d 883 

(1984). 

{¶41} Appellant has not demonstrated any improper conduct by the prosecutor, 

much less any that rises to the level of plain error. Appellant’s third assignment of error 

is overruled. 

IV. 

{¶42} In his fourth assignment of error, appellant argues the trial court sentenced 

him under the incorrect belief that the mandatory provisions outlined in R.C. 2929.13(F) 

applied in the instant case. We disagree. 

{¶43} As we noted in our discussion of appellant’s third assignment of error, the 

prosecutor advised the trial court that a prison term is mandatory upon any rape conviction 

pursuant to R.C. 2929.13(F)(2). A rape conviction carries a mandatory prison term and 
Delaware County, Case No. 15CAA070052 13 

the defendant is ineligible for judicial release. See, State v. Cunningham, 5th Dist. 

Coshocton No. 05CA018, 2006-Ohio-4695. 

{¶44} Appellant again argues the mandatory term does not apply in this case 

because the victim is not under the age of 13 and he was not indicted as a sexuallyviolent predator. These are not requirements to impose a mandatory prison term upon a 

rape conviction. 

{¶45} Appellant’s fourth assignment of error is overruled. 

V. 

{¶46} In his fifth assignment of error, appellant argues juror misconduct required 

the trial court to grant appellant’s motion for new trial. We disagree. 

{¶47} The analysis of a case involving alleged juror misconduct requires a twotier inquiry. First, it must be determined whether there was juror misconduct. Second, if 

juror misconduct is found, it must then be determined whether the misconduct materially 

affected appellant's substantial rights. State v. Meeks, supra, 2015-Ohio-1527 at ¶ 115, 

citing State v. Taylor, 73 Ohio App.3d 827, 833, 598 N.E.2d 818 (4th Dist.1991). 

{¶48} The hearing in this case was conducted pursuant to Ohio Evid. R. 606(B), 

which states in pertinent part: 

 Upon an inquiry into the validity of a verdict or indictment, a 

juror may not testify as to any matter or statement occurring during 

the course of the jury's deliberations or to the effect of anything upon 

that or any other juror's mind or emotions as influencing the juror to 

assent to or dissent from the verdict or indictment or concerning the 

juror's mental processes in connection therewith. A juror may testify 
Delaware County, Case No. 15CAA070052 14 

on the question whether extraneous prejudicial information was 

improperly brought to the jury's attention or whether any outside 

influence was improperly brought to bear on any juror, only after 

some outside evidence of that act or event has been presented. * * * 

*. 

{¶49} The trial court’s decision that no juror misconduct occurred, and subsequent 

denial of a new trial, is not an abuse of discretion. In cases involving outside influences 

on jurors, trial courts are granted broad discretion in dealing with the contact and 

determining whether to declare a mistrial or to replace an affected juror. Id. at ¶ 117, citing 

State v. Phillips, 74 Ohio St.3d 72, 89, 656 N.E.2d 643, 661 (1995), and United States v. 

Daniels, 528 F.2d 705, 709–710 (C.A.6, 1976); United States v. Williams, 822 F.2d 1174, 

1189 (C.A.D.C.1987); Annotation, 3 A.L.R.5th 963, 971, Section 2 (1992). A trial judge's 

determination of possible juror bias should be given great deference only upon the 

appellate court's satisfaction that the trial judge exercised sound discretion in determining 

whether juror bias existed and whether it could be cured. Id., citing State v. Gunnell, 132 

Ohio St.3d 442, 2012-Ohio-3236, 973 N.E.2d 243, ¶ 29. We are satisfied the trial court 

exercised sound discretion. 

{¶50} Appellant failed to produce sufficient evidence of improper outside influence 

upon the jury. The existence of a newspaper article about the case is not sufficient 

evidence that an act of juror misconduct occurred. 

{¶51} Appellant’s fifth assignment of error is overruled. 

VI. 
Delaware County, Case No. 15CAA070052 15 

{¶52} In his sixth assignment of error, appellant argues he received ineffective 

assistance of trial counsel. We disagree. 

{¶53} To succeed on a claim of ineffectiveness, a defendant must satisfy a twoprong test. Initially, a defendant must show that trial counsel acted incompetently. See, 

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052 (1984). In assessing such claims, 

“a court must indulge a strong presumption that counsel's conduct falls within the wide 

range of reasonable professional assistance; that is, the defendant must overcome the 

presumption that, under the circumstances, the challenged action ‘might be considered 

sound trial strategy.’” Id. at 689, citing Michel v. Louisiana, 350 U.S. 91, 101, 76 S.Ct. 158 

(1955). 

{¶54} “There are countless ways to provide effective assistance in any given case. 

Even the best criminal defense attorneys would not defend a particular client in the same 

way.” Strickland, 466 U.S. at 689. The question is whether counsel acted “outside the 

wide range of professionally competent assistance.” Id. at 690. 

{¶55} Even if a defendant shows that counsel was incompetent, the defendant 

must then satisfy the second prong of the Strickland test. Under this “actual prejudice” 

prong, the defendant must show that “there is a reasonable probability that, but for 

counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” 

Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694. 

{¶56} First, appellant cites defense trial counsel’s failure to object to the 

mandatory prison term. As we addressed supra, appellant’s prison term is mandatory. 

{¶57} Next, appellant cites defense trial counsel’s comments in voir dire and 

opening statement about appellant’s status as an immigrant and his understanding of 
Delaware County, Case No. 15CAA070052 16 

texts from the victim. The trial court later told the jury to disregard these statements 

because they were not supported by the evidence at trial in light of appellant’s decision 

not to testify. Counsel’s comments were reasonable trial strategy because when the 

statements were made, the possibility existed appellant would testify. His citizenship 

status was a legitimate matter of inquiry during voir dire. 

{¶58} Finally, appellant cites multiple failures to object without stating what the 

basis for objection might have been. None of the cited examples are necessarily 

objectionable and trial counsel's decision to ignore them may be reasonably attributed to 

trial strategy. Trial strategy and even debatable trial tactics do not establish ineffective 

assistance of counsel. State v. Conway, 109 Ohio St.3d 412, 2006-Ohio-2815, 848 

N.E.2d 810, ¶ 101. Strategic choices made after substantial investigation “will seldom if 

ever” be found wanting. Strickland, supra, 466 U.S. at 681, 104 S.Ct. 2052. Moreover, 

the failure to object to error, alone, is not enough to sustain a claim of ineffective 

assistance of counsel. State v. Crawford, 5th Dist. No. 07 CA 116, 2008-Ohio-6260, 2008 

WL 5077638, ¶ 72, appeal not allowed, 123 Ohio St.3d 1474, 2009-Ohio-5704, 915 

N.E.2d 1255, citing State v. Fears, 86 Ohio St.3d 329, 347, 715 N.E.2d 136 (1999). 

Ultimately we find no reasonable probability the outcome of the trial would have been 

different had such objections been raised. See, State v. Graber, 5th Dist. No. 

2002CA00014, 2003-Ohio-137, 2003 WL 124283, ¶ 154, appeal not allowed, 101 Ohio 

St.3d 1466, 2004-Ohio-819, 804 N.E.2d 40. 

{¶59} Appellant’s sixth assignment of error is overruled. 

VII. 
Delaware County, Case No. 15CAA070052 17 

{¶60} In his seventh assignment of error, appellant argues the trial court should 

not have instructed the jury to disregard statements made by defense trial counsel 

regarding appellant’s citizenship status. We disagree. 

{¶61} In opening statement, defense trial counsel stated appellant came to the 

U.S. from Sierra Leone. Further, in reference to texts between appellant and the victim 

after the rape, defense trial counsel stated appellant understood the victim referred to a 

“hug,” prompting him to apologize, and he did not realize she alleged rape. When these 

comments were not supported by any evidence at trial, the trial court properly instructed 

the jury to disregard. 

{¶62} “[A] court's instructions to the jury should be addressed to the actual issues 

in the case as posited by the evidence and the pleadings.” State v. Farringer, 5th Dist. 

Fairfield No. 14-CA-43, 2015-Ohio-2644, ¶ 19, appeal not allowed, 144 Ohio St.3d 1440, 

2015-Ohio-5468, 43 N.E.3d 451, citing State v. Guster, 66 Ohio St.2d 266, 271, 421 

N.E.2d 157 (1981). A trial court does not abuse its discretion when it instructs the jury to 

disregard an issue raised by a defendant in opening statement when no evidence in 

support is presented at trial. State v. Johnson, 11th Dist. Ashtabula No. 2001-A-0043, 

2002-Ohio-6570, ¶ 27. 

{¶63} Appellant’s seventh assignment of error is overruled. 

VIII. 

{¶64} In his eighth assignment of error, appellant summarily argues the trial court 

erred in allegedly making a conclusory statement regarding appellant’s guilt during jury 

instructions. We disagree. 
Delaware County, Case No. 15CAA070052 18 

{¶65} We have reviewed the cited comment and disagree with appellant’s 

characterization of it as a conclusory statement of appellant’s guilt. The trial court merely 

informed the jury of the allegations contained in the indictment during preliminary jury 

instructions. The description of the conduct does not constitute a comment on appellant’s 

guilt or innocence. 

{¶66} Appellant’s eighth assignment of error is overruled. 

IX. 

{¶67} In his ninth assignment of error, appellant claims the effect of cumulative 

errors in the jury trial deprived him of a fair trial. We disagree. 

{¶68} In State v. Garner, 74 Ohio St.3d 49, 64, 656 N.E.2d 623 (1995), the Ohio 

Supreme Court held pursuant to the cumulative error doctrine “a conviction will be 

reversed where the cumulative effect of errors in a trial deprives a defendant of the 

constitutional right to a fair trial even though each of numerous instances of trial court 

error does not individually constitute cause for reversal.” 

{¶69} In the instant case, we do not find multiple instances of harmless error 

triggering the cumulative error doctrine, and appellant’s ninth assignment of error is 

therefore overruled. 

 
Delaware County, Case No. 15CAA070052 19 

CONCLUSION 

{¶70} Appellant’s nine assignments of error are overruled and the judgment of the 

Delaware County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed. 

By: Delaney, J. and 

Gwin, P.J. 

Baldwin, J., concur.