Skip to main content

State v. Smith

Citations

  • 2019 Ohio 5264

Syllabus

AGGRAVATED BURGLARY – BURGLARY – EVIDENCE – SUFFICIENCY — JURY INSTRUCTIONS – ACCOMPLICE TESTIMONY – CONSTITUTIONAL LAW/CRIMINAL – DUE PROCESS – COUNSEL – DOUBLE JEOPARDY – SENTENCING: Defendant's conviction on one count of aggravated burglary was not supported by sufficient evidence where the evidence showed that defendant merely attempted to gain entry by twisting the doorknob, and no evidence was presented that defendant had entered the house. Defendant's conviction on one count of burglary was not supported by sufficient evidence where the sole resident of the apartment was on vacation at the time of the break-in and there was no indication that anyone was allowed to be in the apartment while the resident was away. The trial court did not commit plain error in failing to instruct the jury on accomplice testimony where defendant did not request such an instruction, the accomplice testimony was supported by other evidence, the accomplice's bias was brought out on cross-examination, and the court instructed the jury on assessing the credibility of witnesses. The state did not commit prosecutorial misconduct based on the use of false testimony where defendant failed to demonstrate that the state's witness's testimony was false. Defense counsel was not ineffective for failing to cross-examine a codefendant about the considerations she received in exchange for her testimony, failing to object to false testimony and prosecutorial misconduct, failing to move for the recusal of the judge, not moving to dismiss various charges for lack of adequate notice, or for not moving to have various offenses merged: no promises were made to the codefendant and counsel discredited her testimony in other ways the complained of testimony was not false there was not even an appearance of bias and prejudice on the part of the trial judge the charges in the indictment provided sufficient notice to defendant of the charges pending against him and the offenses were committed separately and

Judges: Crouse

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

9 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

23 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.