During a bench trial in the Dayton Municipal Court, a Dayton criminal defense attorney tried to question the alleged domestic violence victim on cross examination about a prior inconsistent statement she made. The prosecutor objected and the Honorable Daniel G. Gehres sustained the objection.
On appeal, the Montgomery County Court of Appeals reversed and remanded. The Dayton criminal defense lawyer did not have to make a proffer of the evidence that was excluded during cross examination (Evid.R. 103(A)(2)), "asking a witness about a prior inconsistent statement does not involve extrinsic evidence of that prior inconsistent statement" and therefore Evid.R. 613(B), and nothing in Criminal Rule 16 required the defense to turn over a prior inconsistent statement they could use in cross examination of a prosecution witness (and there was no case management plan requiring that witness statements had to be turned over by both sides). Read the decision in State v. Clifford Pierce, 2011-Ohio-4873, here.
If you are accused of a crime or have been convicted already, contact me if you can afford to hire a private criminal defense lawyer. Otherwise, contact your county or state public defender to see if they can help.
Contact me 24/7 by sending an email to ohiocriminalappealslawyer@gmail.com
