State v. Moten

Citations

• 2021 Ohio 233

Syllabus

The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant's motion for a new trial. Appellant's prejudicial misjoinder argument was barred by res judicata. Moreover, the evidence regarding the charge of aggravated burglary, which was dismissed pursuant to Crim.R. 29 at the conclusion of the State's case, did not create \compelling prejudice\ such that appellant was entitled to a new trial on the remaining counts due to prejudicial misjoinder, or spillover prejudice. The record strongly suggests that the firearm used in the offense was not destroyed, as stated in the State's inventory report pursuant to R.C. 2953.75(A). Nevertheless, the trial court did not err in denying appellant's application for post-conviction DNA testing of the firearm on the ground that an exclusion result would not be outcome determinative. Judgments affirmed.