Ohio Criminal Appeals Lawyer Blog

Judge Grady dissented when Damien Brown's convictions were affirmed on appeal. Brown was convicted of killing his girlfriend Marquita Brown. Damien and Marquita were in a closed room with no eyewitnesses when the gun went off that killed her. So how could the prosecutor possibly "know" what happened? Well, they don't. But they sure believe they do, and they had to convince a jury to convict Damien so they could get their "justice." So what could they do to prove that Marquita's death was no accident?

They had Marquita's sister testify that Damien choked Marquita in the spring of 2010, they produced a voice mail message where Damien threatened to burn down Marquita's apartment, police testified that Damien threatened to burn down her apartment, another woman had filed a DV charge against Damien years earlier, and Margene Robinson, a domestic violence "expert" testified regarding "common misconceptions about domestic violence."

So how did any of this show what took place in the room when Marquita died? It showed a "propensity to engage in such other conduct, which is inadmissible pursuant to Evid.R. 404(A)." The State used character evidence to get the jury to convict, which was improper. Judge Grady knows it, but the other two judges voted to affirm for some reason.

Well, at least Damien can hang this quote in his prison cell. Sometimes when you don't get justice, all you have is a nice quote. State v. Brown, 2012-Ohio-1848, paragraph 67.

"Justice is not advanced by bending the rules to afford the prosecution a better chance to obtain a conviction." - Judge Grady.

Contact me if you need a Dayton Criminal Defense Lawyer for your appeal or other post conviction matter.

Contact me 24/7 by sending an email to ohiocriminalappealslawyer@gmail.com

The Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, heard a "he said, she said" sex case. With a "he said, she said" case, how can the prosecution prove the defendant did it? Usually it turns into a credibility contest. But in the Cuyahoga County case of In Re C.T., the prosecution tried to show that C.T. did it before so he must have done it again. The problem is, such evidence is specifically prohibited by Ohio Evidence Rule 404(B). The adjudication of C.T. as a delinquent was reversed and a new trial ordered by the Eighth District Court of Appeals. 2012-Ohio-1644.

Contact me if you need a Dayton area Criminal Defense Lawyer for your Ohio criminal appeal or other post conviction matter.

Contact me 24/7 by sending an email to ohiocriminalappealslawyer@gmail.com

The Eighth District Court of Appeals ruled that a Cuyahoga County Trial Court abused its discretion by allowing "other acts" testimony in a trial for kidnapping and gross sexual imposition (GSI). Ohio Evidence Rule 404(B) prohibits the use of other acts evidence to prove the defendant has the propensity to commit the kind of crime for which he is on trial. There are some exceptions which allow the use of other acts evidence, but the Court of Appeals said none of those exceptions applied in this case. The Eighth District reversed the defendant's convictions and remanded the case for a new trial as you can read here.

If you are accused of a crime or have been convicted already, contact me if you can afford to hire a Dayton based criminal defense lawyer. Otherwise, contact your county or state public defender to see if they can help.

A Greene County defendant was on trial for attempted felonious assault after he beat his wife when he learned she was having an affair. The trial judge allowed the prosecutor, over objections by the defense, to introduce evidence of three other domestic violence incidents where the defendant beat his wife. But Evidence Rule 404(B) prohibits the use of other bad acts by the defendant to prove that the defendant acted badly in the case for which he is being tried. There are exceptions to 404(B) - like if the other bad acts are being presented to show motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident - but the Second District Court of Appeals for Greene County determined none of those applied.

The Greene County Assistant Prosecutor argued and the judge agreed that the prior bad acts should come in to show the victim's state of mind - to show why the victim did not try to escape from the defendant. The problem with that was the victim's testimony where she said she DID try to escape but the defendant physically prevented her from doing so.

Since the prior bad acts could not be admitted for any of the exceptions to 404(B) and the "state of mind" justification did not fit here, the Court of Appeals determined that the trial judge abused his discretion in admitting the prior bad acts, reversed the conviction and remanded the case to the trial court as you can read 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.

You've gotta love the criminal justice system. One rule the courts follow is to pretend that the trial judge can magically selectively erase the jurors' memories. Do you remember the memory erasing device that was used in the movie Men in Black? The "neuralizer"? Subjects were asked to look at it and with a flash, the neuralizer could erase a recent memory and a "Man in Black" could substitute a different memory for the subject.

Well, Ohio trial judges do not have neuralizers. So what is a judge to do when one of the State's witnesses says something the jurors should not hear? Something that would prevent the defendant from having a fair trial? The trial judge tells the jurors to "disregard" what they just heard from the witness stand. And then the reviewing courts pretend that the jurors followed the judge's instructions and so they must have disregarded that which they were instructed to disregard. Then you get a decision from the court of appeals that says, "all of the defendant's assignments of error having been overruled, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed."

But in the Ottawa County case of State v. Davis, the Sixth District Court of Appeals decided the curative instruction was just not enough. Davis was on trial for "tampering with evidence" for allegedly swallowing drugs in attempt to avoid prosecution. An arresting officer told the jury that he knew Davis because he had dealt with him "in the past as far as narcotics complaints and everything else." This was improper evidence under Ohio Evidence Rule 404(B) as you can read here.

A Medina County Judge erred by allowing the jury to hear "other acts" evidence to prove the State's child rape case. Like most child molestation cases, the proof was limited to the testimony of the complainant. So the State tried to show the defendant was a "sex-crazed pervert" to make its case. It introduced and the trial court allowed (over objection) evidence that the defendant made a drunken sexual advance at the complainant's adult sister and would kick the dog if his wife refused to have sex with him. The Ninth District Court of Appeals determined this other acts evidence violated Ohio Evidence Rule 404 and that the trial court's error in allowing this evidence was not harmless as you can read here.