Ohio Supreme Court· 9/22/2020

State v. Hartman (Slip Opinion)

Citations

161 N.E.3d 651
161 Ohio St. 3d 214
2020 Ohio 4440

Syllabus

Criminal law—Other-acts evidence—Evid.R. 404(B)—Other-acts evidence must prove something other than a defendant's disposition or propensity to commit certain acts and must be probative of a proper particular purpose for which it is offered—Other-acts evidence must be excluded under Evid.R. 403(A) when its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury—A trial court's limiting instruction to a jury regarding its consideration of other-acts evidence should be narrowly tailored to state the specific purpose for which the evidence is being offered.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

holding that “[b]alancing the risks and benefits of the evidence necessarily involves an exercise of judgment; thus, the trial court’s determination should be reviewed for an abuse of discretion”
“‘[s]imilar act evidence is relevant only if the 14 January Term, 2024 jury can reasonably conclude that the act occurred and that the defendant was the actor’ ”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: DeWine, J.

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

203 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

16 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

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.