 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Adams6/30/2004
sed on Alexander and Lawson, supra, the trial court was not required to have the prosecutor's file sealed for appellate review. Again, this court complied with the trial court's request to review the sealed file but found no apparent discovery violations.
. Appellant also alleges that appellee engaged in "witness tampering" with respect to Christina, and argues that pursuant to Crim.R. 33(A)(2), a new trial should be granted. Christina testified that the assistant prosecutor, Sarah Kovoor ("Kovoor"), and Stinedurf, told her not to mention an incident where David told Christina about how he choked Roslyn. Christina also alleged that Kovoor and Stinedurf told her to keep quiet with respect to David mounting a knife as a souvenir to represent incidents with Roslyn. However, Stinedurf denied the contentions made by Christina. Stinedurf testified that she did not order Christina not to talk to anyone else, but rather told her to be truthful. Stinedurf also stated at trial that she never told Christina to leave out part of her story or to conceal any comments David may have made.
. "On the trial of a case, either civil or criminal , the weight to be given the evidence and the credibility of the witnesses are primarily for the trier of the facts." State v. DeHass (1967), 10 Ohio St.2d 230, paragraph one of the syllabus. "A reviewing court may not reverse a judgment of conviction in a criminal case in a trial court, where the record shows that a verdict of guilty was returned by a jury on sufficient evidence and where no prejudicial error occurred in the actual trial of the case or in the instructions given the jury by the court." Id. at paragraph two of the syllabus.
. In the instant case, Christina's favorable stories concerning appellant and the incriminating comments dealing with David were presented to the jury. Based on DeHass, supra, it was the jury's duty to determine the credibility of the witnesses. It appears the jury gave more weight and found Stinedurf's testimony more credible than Christina's. As such, based on the record and the evidence presented, the factfinders' conclusions did not deprive appellant of his right to a fair trial and due process of law. Therefore, appellant is not entitled to a new trial pursuant to Crim.R. 33. Thus, appellant's second assignment of error is without merit.
. In his third assignment of error, appellant argues that his convictions for rape and murder are not supported by sufficient evidence.
. As this court stated in State v. Schlee (Dec. 23, 1994), 11th Dist. No. 93-L-082, 1994 Ohio App. LEXIS 5862, at 13:
. "`Sufficiency' challenges whether the prosecution has presented evidence on each element of the offense to allow the matter to go to the jury, while `manifest weight' contests the believability of the evidence presented.
. "`"( *)The test (for sufficiency of the evidence) is whether after viewing the probative evidence and the inference drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found all of the elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. The claim of insufficient evidence invokes an inquiry about due process. It raises a question of law, the resolution of which does not allow the court to weigh the evidence. *"'
. "In other words, the standard to be applied on a question concerning sufficiency is: when viewing the evidence `in a light most favorable to the prosecution,' * `(a) reviewing court (should) not reverse a jury verdict where there is substantial evidence which the jury could reasonably conclude that all of the elements of an offense have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.' *" (E
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.
|
|