Skip to main content

State v. Carter

Citations

  • 2017 Ohio 5573

Syllabus

Police questioning for investigative purposes plain error lesser included offense jury instruction expert testimony right to confront abuse of discretion opinion testimony hearsay testimony effective assistance of counsel sufficiency manifest weight. It was not error where the trial court allowed the officer to testify to the statements appellant made during the officer's investigation. At the time of questioning, appellant was not under arrest and the line of questioning was for investigative purposes to determine what had transpired between appellant and the victim. The jury believed that appellant's actions included an intent to commit a sexual act despite the fact that the act was not completed. The trial court did not err by not giving the jury an instruction for a lesser included offense of abduction. The scientist's testimony was shown to be relevant to the state's claim that appellant choked the victim and that testimony met the criteria of Evid.R. 702. Appellant was not denied his right to confront. There was no proffer in the record about what appellant wanted the nurse to testify about being that the document appellant wanted to address was not a document created by the nurse. The detective's testimony regarding appellant's level of cooperation was properly admitted as to the detective's investigative procedure appellant's counsel objected to further testimony that was improper and the trial court admonished the witness regarding that testimony. It is presumed that the jury followed the trial court's instruction to disregard that portion of testimony. Appellant's counsel's failure to seek an instruction on a lesser-included offense instruction is deemed to be trial strategy a motion to suppress appellant's non-custodial statement was not proper even without appellant's counsel's objection, the trial court found on its own that a portion of the officer's testimony was improper and failure to play a portion of the video was not intentional, but rather a mis

Judges: Jones

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

10 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

39 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases with this name

Sourced 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.