State v. Akladyous
Citations
- 224 N.E.3d 104
- 2023 Ohio 3105
Syllabus
Defendant appeals domestic violence conviction. Victim, an Arabic speaker, testified through an interpreter. The defendant claimed that the interpreter incorrectly translated portions of the victim's testimony. The defendant failed to demonstrate prejudice where his version of events largely mirrored the victim's version of events but for certain facts that might inculpate him. The defendant did not claim that the interpreter mistranslated critical facts.
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- holding that evidentiary hearing on allegations of juror’s drug and alcohol use during deliberations was unnecessary
- holding that juror intoxication is not an “outside influence” about which jurors may testify to impeach their verdict
- holding that the trial court did not err when it refused to hold further evidentiary hearings about the competency of jurors
- holding that jurors’ consumption of drugs and alcohol during trial is internal to the deliberative process and not admissible to impeach a verdict
- holding that refusal to hold an evidentiary hearing, given the restrictions of Rule 606(b), does not violate a defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to trial by an impartial jury
- holding that district court did not err in deciding that a post-verdict hearing was unnecessary, despite juror’s allegations of excessive alcohol consumption and illegal drug use during deliberations
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Byrne
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.