# State v. Thompson (Slip Opinion)

> Ohio Supreme Court · October 29, 2014 · 141 Ohio St. 3d 254

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9804471

## Case

- **Full name:** The State of Ohio, Appellee, v. Thompson, Appellant
- **Court:** Ohio Supreme Court
- **Decided:** October 29, 2014
- **Citations:** 141 Ohio St. 3d 254; 23 N.E.3d 1096; 2014 Ohio 4751
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurring in part by PfeifeR
- **Judges:** French, O'Donnell, Kennedy, Pfeifer, Lanzinger, O'Neill
- **Cited by:** 234 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9804471

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- observing that few decisions at trial are as prone to individual attorney strategy as voir dire and that trial counsel are in the best position to determine whether a juror can be rehabilitated as they have personally observed the juror's demeanor and statements.
- finding defense counsel may reasonably have decided not to request a self-defense instruction where defendant shot the victim “four times, twice as he lay on the ground * * *”
- holding that a trial court’s error in applying Batson is a structural error and not subject to harmless-error review
- finding "nothing improper" about the prosecutor's argument that the defense theory is "absurd"
- discussing racial discrimination in jury selection and the shortcomings of Batson

## Opinion text

PfeifeR, J.,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
{¶ 315} I concur in the affirmance of Thompson’s convictions. There is ample evidence to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Thompson committed the heinous crimes of which he was found guilty. None of Thompson’s propositions of law was adopted by the majority, nor should any have been. Nevertheless, I do not agree that a death sentence is warranted. Although it is a close call, upon independent weighing, I conclude that the mitigating circumstances, particularly Thompson’s history, character, and background, are sufficient to outweigh the aggravating circumstances. I would sentence Thompson to life without parole.
Lanzinger, J., concurs in the foregoing opinion.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9804471. Public record. Not legal advice.