State v. Bouyer

Citations

• 233 N.E.3d 41
• 2023 Ohio 4793

Syllabus

Sixth Amendment bills of particulars mistrial erroneous evidence plain error verdict forms victim-impact testimony record to refresh recollection veracity testimony sufficiency of the evidence sexually violent predator specification hearing. Appellant failed to establish he was prejudiced by state's multiple bills of particulars (\BOP\) where the BOPs identified the alleged conduct and the relevant time frames, and he failed to identify how the lack of information in the state's BOPs prejudiced his defense. The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it failed to declare a mistrial after the state introduced a victim's video statement. Ultimately, the video contained inadmissible evidence of other acts testimony however, the trial court's curative instruction and refusal to submit the evidence to the jury was sufficient to cure the error. The verdict forms did not improperly refer to other counts, nor did they require the jury to make findings as to other counts in order to determine the verdict. The jury instructions that accompanied the verdict forms properly explained the law and only referenced other counts without requiring the jury to make findings. Appellant failed to establish that any error in the verdict forms rose to the level of plain error. Appellant failed to establish that improper victim-impact testimony was admitted. The very limited testimony that was admitted that qualified as victim-impact testimony was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. The trial court erred when it allowed the state to refresh the recollection of a defense witness with recorded jail phone calls on the record in front of the jury. However, those calls related to tangential matters, and appellant failed to establish that, but for their admission, the result of the trial would have been different. Improper testimony claiming the veracity of the witness did not prejudice the appellant. Preliminarily, several witnesses' testimony indirectly bolstered a victim's testimony, but