 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Hamilton4/12/2002
>
"Q: Did you socialize, do things together?
"A: Yes.
"Q: What type of things would you do?
"A: Well, we drink together, smoke marijuana.
"MR. SZEMAN: Objection.
"Q: (By Mr. Bartolotta) Just kind of hang out together, things like that?
"A: Yes."
Whether appellant had smoked marijuana with Mr. King has no relevance as to whether he murdered the victim. It has no probative value at all. Further, it is highly prejudicial to appellant, as the state was able get evidence before the jury that appellant has used marijuana. This has nothing to do with the case. Here, the probative value of the testimony was substantially outweighed by the unfair prejudice to appellant. The trial court abused its discretion by admitting this testimony.
The second individual, Jameson Jeffries, testified on direct about his encounter with appellant on May 10, 1999, as follows:
"Q: What happened when you undid the doors - -unlocked the doors?
"A: [Appellant] started to get in.
"Q: What happened?
"A: He tripped getting in, like almost fell in my car.
"Q: What happened next?
"A: Um, he got in.
"Q: Did you have any conversation with him at that time?
"A: Yes, he asked me for a dub.
"MR. SZEMAN: Objection.
"THE COURT: Asked what?
"A: He asked me for a dub.
"Q. Well - -
"THE COURT: I am going to overrule the objection.
"Q: (By Mr. Culotta) Let me ask you first, before we go any further, Tyrone - - strike that - - can you explain for the members of the jury what a dub is?
"A: It's somebody comes to a person with $20 and asked somebody for a dub, they usually get $40 of crack cocaine for $20."
By overruling the objection of defense counsel, the trial court allowed the jury to hear evidence that appellant attempted to purchase crack cocaine. Mr. Jeffries stated that he did not sell appellant any crack cocaine. Although this was on the night of the crime, whether or not appellant attempted to purchase crack cocaine has nothing to do with whether he murdered the victim. No evidence was presented (such as the motive for the murder was robbery for drug money) that related these two events. This evidence about the attempted cocaine purchase has very little, if any, probative value. Also, it is very highly prejudicial to appellant, because it is additional evidence before the jury that defendant was a drug user.
The trial court abused its discretion by allowing this testimony relating to the attempted crack cocaine purchase, as any probative value is substantially outweighed by the prejudicial effect on appellant.
Mr. Jeffries also testified that, on the night of the murder, appellant appeared under the influence of a drug called "wet," which is marijuana or cigarettes dipped in embalming fluid and smoked. Mr. Jeffries then testified that a person on "wet" shows more aggressive behavior. He stated that appellant appeared aggressive on the night of the murder. Defense counsel objected to the questions regarding: Mr. Jeffries experience in drug use, his opinion as to whether appellant was under the influence of drugs on the night in question, and his opinion as to what those drugs were. All of these objections were overruled by the trial court.
Mr. Jeffries was not recognized by the court as an expert witness to testify under Evid.R. 702. Further, there was nothing in Mr. Jeffries' testimony to satisfy the requirements of Evid.R. 702(C), which requires the testimony
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Ohio DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|