State v. Bell

Citations

• 2019 Ohio 340

Syllabus

Suppression of evidence Crim.R. 29 judgment of acquittal sufficiency and manifest weight of the evidence authentication of evidence Evid.R. 901 refresh recollection withdrawal of counsel reopen case Evid.R. 803 excited utterance R.C. 2945.10 order of trial proceedings plain error Evid.R. 404(B) other acts evidence merged counts R.C. 2941.25. Appellant's convictions were supported by sufficient evidence to establish the elements of the crimes and were not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Merged counts are not convictions under R.C. 2941.25 and need not be reviewed for sufficiency because any error would be harmless. Appellant's motion to suppress his confession was properly denied. Appellant was Mirandized and there is no evidence that appellant was under the influence of drugs or alcohol. The authentication of prison letters and telephone calls under Evid.R. 901 was sufficient. The videotape of a witness's original statement to police should not have been used to refresh the witness's recollection under Evid.R. 612 but was harmless error in light of the presumption that the trial court considered only admissible evidence during the bench trial. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying the withdrawal of cocounsel. No conflict of interest existed and a disagreement with cocounsel's strategy did not jeopardize appellant's right to effective assistance of counsel. Deviation from the order of proceedings under R.C. 2945.10 is within the sound discretion of the trial court. The demeanor of the distraught witness and the statement \my son\ at the scene shortly after the shooting qualified as an excited utterance under Evid.R. 803(2). The testimony that police had not determined whether shots fired into the residence of appellant's girlfriend several days after the shooting was connected with appellant did not constitute other acts evidence under Evid.R. 404(B) and did not rise to the level of plain error.