Background
Derrick Terrell was indicted by a Cuyahoga County Grand Jury on May 23, 2025, on charges including aggravated trafficking in drugs, aggravated possession of drugs, trespass in a habitation, criminal damaging or endangering, and multiple counts of failure to stop after an accident. The charges stemmed from a March 9, 2025 incident in which Terrell crashed a Volkswagen SUV through a fence and into two garages on Memphis Avenue in Cleveland, then broke into a nearby home. Inside the home, he left behind a red jacket, car keys, his driver’s license, and $4,709 in cash. Police recovered nine vials of phencyclidine (PCP) from his vehicle, and an eyewitness identified him in a photo lineup with 90 percent certainty.
At trial, the State presented testimony from neighbors who witnessed the crash and its aftermath, surveillance footage, and responding officers. During the State’s direct examination of Sergeant Dillon Lutgring, the vice sergeant in charge of the incident, the prosecutor repeatedly asked questions about the evidentiary value of the cash and drugs found for proving trafficking. Defense counsel objected multiple times, and the trial court sustained the objections, but the prosecutor continued asking related questions about Lutgring’s training and experience in drug investigations. Terrell did not request a curative instruction regarding these sustained objections.
Terrell testified on his own behalf against the advice of counsel, admitting that he possessed a mason jar of PCP, that he sold PCP, and that he left the scene of the accident. He explained that he was under the influence of PCP at the time of the crash and was attempting to dispose of evidence and create a diversion because he was on federal parole. The jury found him guilty on all counts and specifications on February 5, 2026. The trial court merged certain convictions for sentencing and imposed an aggregate sentence of seven to ten and one-half years in prison, plus $3,500 in restitution.
The Court’s Holding
The Eighth District affirmed Terrell’s convictions, rejecting his sole assignment of error that he was denied a fair trial under the cumulative error doctrine. Terrell argued that the trial court’s failure to give curative instructions after sustaining defense objections to the State’s repeated questions during Sergeant Lutgring’s examination etched illicit questions into the jurors’ minds and left him no choice but to testify.
The court held that Terrell waived the issue by failing to request a curative instruction at trial. Citing State v. Wallace, the court explained that the responsibility to request curative instructions lies with the defendant, and when defense counsel fails to make such a request, any error in the trial court’s failure to give one is waived. Because the failure to request a curative instruction is not an error attributed to the trial court, the cumulative error doctrine does not apply.
The court also rejected Terrell’s assertion that he was essentially compelled to testify as a result of the State’s questioning. The record showed that both defense counsel and the trial court ensured Terrell understood the perils of testifying, given his extensive federal criminal history and the significant evidence against him. The court found no support for the claim that he was forced to take the stand.
Key Takeaways
- Defendants must request curative instructions when objections are sustained; failure to do so waives the issue on appeal.
- The cumulative error doctrine applies only to errors attributable to the trial court, not to a defendant’s failure to request remedial measures.
- A defendant’s decision to testify against counsel’s advice, after being warned of the risks, does not establish that he was compelled to testify by prior trial errors.
- Terrell’s convictions for aggravated drug trafficking, trespass, and related offenses were affirmed, along with his seven to ten-and-a-half-year prison sentence.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces the importance of trial counsel’s obligation to request curative instructions when the trial court sustains objections to improper questioning. The ruling clarifies that defendants cannot rely on the cumulative error doctrine to challenge a trial court’s failure to give instructions that were never requested. It also underscores that a defendant’s strategic decision to testify, even against counsel’s advice and after being warned of the risks, will not be treated as compelled by prior evidentiary rulings.