 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Adams6/30/2004
prejudicial because it would not have changed the outcome of the trial.
. "Exculpatory evidence" is defined as evidence favorable to the accused, which "if disclosed and used effectively, * may make the difference between conviction and acquittal." U.S. v. Bagley (1985), 473 U.S. 667, 676. Appellant did not articulate to the trial court, nor does he reveal to this court, exactly what material evidence was contained in the various witness statements which may have made the difference between conviction and acquittal. See State v. Johnston (1988), 39 Ohio St.3d 48, paragraph five of the syllabus.
. Appellant's contention of a discovery violation in his original brief involved appellee's witness, Matthew Balut ("Balut"), a lieutenant from Champion Fire Department, who submitted inconsistent testimony which differed in part from his report. The discovery provided to appellant by way of Balut's opinion stated that the fire, which consumed Roslyn's vehicle, had an "undetermined origin." On cross-examination, Balut continued to hold that he could not state with certainty the source or cause of the fire. On redirect, the prosecutor had again elicited testimony that the fire could be "anything from a discarded cigarette to somebody using a lighter to set the fire." However, the trial court struck the redirect testimony and informed the jury to disregard it and not consider it for any purpose. Here, Balut's testimony varied from that rendered by him in his direct testimony and from that submitted in his cross-examination. Appellant was provided a report and had a right to examine the witness on the finding of that report.
. Assuming arguendo that the prosecutor's actions were improper, we conclude that they did not prejudicially affect the substantial rights of appellant. In particular, the trial court cured any error by striking Balut's answers on redirect examination, as well as by dismissing the aggravated arson charge outright. Furthermore, no exculpatory evidence was discovered in the prosecutor's sealed file which would have changed the outcome of this case. Thus, appellant's first assignment of error is without merit.
. In his second assignment of error, appellant argues that the trial court abused its discretion by failing to grant a new trial based upon prosecutorial misconduct resulting in the denial of appellant's rights to a fair trial and due process of law pursuant to the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments. Appellant specifically contends that the prosecutor withheld discoverable materials, as well as promised its potential witnesses leniency in unrelated cases if they testified against appellant, rather than testifying as to their knowledge of certain facts which would exculpate the defendant.
. The Sixth Amendment of the United Stated Constitution, made applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, states in pertinent part that " n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed *." Section One, of the Fourteenth Amendment, specifically states that " *nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
. In the case at bar, with respect to the discovery issue, appellant again argues that it is the duty of this court to comply with his general request to find possible discovery violations in the prosecutor's sealed file worthy of an order for a new trial. Consistent with our analysis in the first assignment of error, because appellant's request was general and ba
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Ohio DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|