State v. Shakhmanov

Citations

• 2019 Ohio 4598

Syllabus

Appellant did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in a co-defendant's business office from which a surveillance video recording was seized and then introduced at trial. The trial court correctly overruled appellant's motion to suppress the recording on this basis the trial court's ruling that the co-defendant consented to the seizure was irrelevant. The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it overruled appellant's motion for a mistrial. Further, trial counsel did not provide ineffective assistance of counsel. Finally, appellant is not entitled to a new trial at which he would be entitled to retroactive application of the burden shifting changes to Ohio's self-defense statute, R.C. 2901.05. Judgment affirmed.