State v. Shelton

Citations

• 2018 Ohio 3895

Syllabus

PROCEDURE/RULES – CONTINUANCE — EVID.R. 404(B) — IDENTIFICATION — ALLIED OFFENSES: The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a continuance requested by defense counsel after the jury had been empaneled in order to subpoena materials and a witness that the state had just disclosed: defendant suffered no prejudice from the denial of the continuance where counsel was able to timely obtain the materials and present testimony from the witness that he sought to subpoena, as well as use the information in cross-examination. Because photographs depicting ammunition not used in the offenses were admitted to establish defendant's identity as the perpetrator, they were not admitted in violation of Evid.R. 404(B). No plain error resulted from the victim's in-court identification of the defendant as the perpetrator of the offenses. Where the force used during the commission of the felonious-assault offense was much more than was necessary to effectuate the aggravated-robbery offense, and demonstrated a specific intent to harm the victim separate from any animus to rob him, the two offenses were committed with a separate animus and were not allied offenses of similar import. Where the offenses of aggravated robbery and theft from an elderly person were committed as part of the same course of conduct with a single state of mind, and where the harm caused by the offenses was not separate and distinct, the two offenses were allied offenses of similar import, and the trial court erred by imposing a separate sentence for each offense.