stating that failure to object insufficient on its own to establish Highland App. No. 25CA24 34 ineffective assistance of counsel; instead, a defendant still must demonstrate that counsel substantially violated an essential duty and that counsel's performance materially prejudiced the defense
How later courts described this case
- stating that failure to object insufficient on its own to establish Highland App. No. 25CA24 34 ineffective assistance of counsel; instead, a defendant still must demonstrate that counsel substantially violated an essential duty and that counsel's performance materially prejudiced the defense
- stating that failure to object insufficient on its own to establish ineffective assistance of counsel; instead, a defendant still must demonstrate that counsel substantially violated an essential duty and that counsel’s performance materially prejudiced the defense
- looking to § 2929.04(B)(7) for proper definition of mitigating factors and finding trial court’s use of different definition in subsequent written opinion was harmless error in part because jury was given proper § 2929.04(B) instruction at time
- "[Mhtigating factors under [Ohio law] are not related to a defendant's culpability but, rather, are those factors that are relevant to the issue of whether an SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 3 (0) 1947A ep(D offender. .. should be sentenced to death."
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Douglas, J.,
concurring. I find the trial court’s weighing to have been entirely proper. Of course, the R.C. 2929.04(B) mitigating factors do not relate to a defendant’s criminal culpability. They relate to reducing a defendant’s moral culpability for the crime committed or in some other way diminish the appropriateness of death as a penalty. See State v. Steffen (1987), 31 Ohio St. 3d 111, 129 , 31 OBR 273, 289, 509 N.E. 2d 383, 399 . This is what the trial judge in his written opinion was saying. Maybe he could have expressed himself a little more precisely — but couldn’t we all!