State v. Cotton

Citations

• 2023 Ohio 46

Syllabus

Testimonial statements elicited by the state that otherwise may violate the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution are admissible if the defendant opens the door to the testimony by asking about the subject matter first. Testimony about the contents of a driver's license and a vehicle's registration is not hearsay if the truth of the contents is immaterial and the testimony is offered as circumstantial evidence from which another fact may be inferred. That trial counsel does not object to the admission of testimony does not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel if an objection would be futile. An appellate court may not consider evidence that supports a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel if the evidence is outside the record. The requisite criminal intent to prove accomplice liability for aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon may be inferred from the evidence. Construing evidence in the light most favorable to the state showing that the defendant tried to cover up the robbery and his complicity in the crime - like the defendant's presence at the crime scene, his companionship with the principal, and his conduct during and after the robbery - permits an inference that the defendant facilitated the robbery knowingly and with the purpose of stealing the victim's money.