STATE v. SMITH

Nos. 88-768 and 89-151.

49 Ohio St. 3d 137 (1990)

THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLANT, v. SMITH, APPELLEE. (TWO CASES.)

Supreme Court of Ohio.

Decided March 7, 1990.


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Arthur M. Ney, Jr., prosecuting attorney, William E. Breyer and R. Daniel Reif, for appellant in case No. 88-768.

Timothy A. Oliver, prosecuting attorney, Joanne Hash and Carolyn A. Benninghoff, for appellant in case No. 89-151.

R. Scott Croswell III and Elizabeth E. Agar, for appellee.


MOYER, C.J.

The state asserts five propositions of law, one of which is related to both the Warren County and Hamilton County trials. We address this issue first.

I

The principal issue is whether the trial courts erred in allowing evidence of other acts to be introduced at each trial pursuant to R.C. 2945.59 or Evid. R. 404(B). For the reasons stated below, we hold that the challenged evidence was properly admitted pursuant to R.C. 2945.59 and Evid...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases