State v. Harris

Citations

• 2024 Ohio 5808

Syllabus

Entrapment; affirmative defense; jury instruction; predisposition; cell phone records; cell phone site location information (\CSLI\); plain error; Crim.R. 30; subpoena; effective assistance of counsel; Strickland test; sufficiency of the evidence; bribery, R.C. 2921.02(A); R.C. 2921.02(B); forgery; R.C. 2913.31(A)(1); R.C. 2913.31(A)(2); insurance fraud; R.C. 2913.47(B)(2); manifest weight of the evidence. The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it declined to instruct the jury on the affirmative defense of entrapment where the evidence demonstrated the defendant's predisposition to commit the charged offenses. Because the defendant held no privacy right in his mobile phone records, the trial court did not commit plain error when it admitted the records at trial. Defendant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel failed where he was unable to show his counsel's performance was deficient or that the alleged deficient performance prejudiced him so as to deprive him of a fair trial. Absent sufficient evidence on the charges of bribery in violation of R.C. 2921.02(B) — because the defendant was not a public servant at the time of the alleged offenses as required under the statute — the trial evidence did not support the bribery convictions. Defendant's bribery convictions are vacated and the case is remanded on this limited issue. The State introduced sufficient evidence at trial to support the convictions of forgery and insurance fraud. Weighing all of the evidence, we cannot say this is one of the rare cases in which the trier of fact lost its way and, thus, the forgery and insurance fraud convictions were not against the manifest weight of the evidence.