State v. Holland

Citations

• 2023 Ohio 4834

Syllabus

Appellant's convictions for complicity to commit murder and other offenses were not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting certain autopsy photos, because their probative value outweighed the danger of unfair prejudice to appellant and they supported the testimony of the forensic pathologist regarding the circumstances of the victim's death. The trial court did not err in refusing to admit a pre-death photo of the victim, which was allegedly relevant to the victim's identity and character, as the victim's identity and character were not at issue. Prosecutorial misconduct is not demonstrated in closing argument, and the trial court did not err in denying appellant's motion for a mistrial or in declining to instruct the jury that appellant was the only one charged in the shooting the prosecutor's statement regarding the other uncharged offenders' complicity was a correct statement of the law, and the court thereafter properly instructed the jury on complicity. The court did not improperly conclude that appellant's silence at sentencing amounted to a lack of remorse. The trial court failed to fulfill the notification requirements of R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(c), the Reagan Tokes Act, in imposing the sentence for discharge of a firearm on or near prohibited premises that conviction is reversed and remanded solely for resentencing in accordance with the statute. Judgment affirmed in all other respects.