State v. Barnett

Citations

• 2018 Ohio 4133

Syllabus

The trial court did not abuse its discretion in permitting testimony at trial concerning Appellant's prior violent behavior when the challenged testimony was not offered to prove that Appellant had bad character or that he acted in conformity with that bad character, but rather to assist in explaining why the victim delayed disclosing her abuse. The trial court also did not abuse its discretion in excluding the contents of the victim's sexually explicit text messages at trial when the actual content of the text messages was of no consequence to Appellant's defense and would have served no purpose other than to portray the victim in a negative light. The fact that the DNA and seminal fluid tests were performed by forensic scientists other than the scientist who analyzed the test results and testified at trial did not violate the Confrontation Clause because the results of the tests performed by the other scientists were not offered for their truth, but used to help the testifying expert explain his own scientific conclusions, all of which were subject to cross-examination. Based on the evidence submitted at trial, there was sufficient evidence to support Appellant's conviction for two counts of sexual battery and said conviction was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Lastly, Appellant's sentence was not contrary to law and we find no clear and convincing evidence indicating that the record does not support Appellant's sentence. Judgment affirmed. (Froelich, J., dissenting.)