State v. Johnson

Citations

• 2022 Ohio 4629

Syllabus

Appellant's double jeopardy protections were not violated when the trial court imposed separate punishments for one count of discharge of a firearm on or near a prohibited premises and one count of felonious assault, as those offenses are not allied offenses of similar import that merge for sentencing. The State did not engage in prosecutorial misconduct when it elicited opinion testimony from a lay witness regarding the type of firearm used during the offenses in question, where the lay witness had sufficient personal experience with firearms and the testimony was helpful in explaining what the lay witness observed on the evening question. The State's failure at closing argument to advise the jury of the physical-harm element required for appellant to be found guilty of second-degree-felony discharge of a firearm on or near a prohibited premises is not reversible error the trial court included the physical-harm element in its jury instructions, and thus the error did not affect the outcome of trial. The trial court did not err by imposing consecutive sentences it made the required findings under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) and those findings are not unsupported by the record. The record did not have to include certified copies of appellant's prior convictions in order to for the trial court to sentence appellant to mandatory prison time under R.C. 2929.13(F)(6), as the trial court was permitted to rely on the criminal record contained in appellant's presentence investigation report. Lastly, all of appellant's convictions were supported by sufficient evidence and were not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Judgment affirmed.