 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Hawn6/30/2000
ied before help arrived.
At the trial, Stephen Hawn presented two firearms experts, who had tested the gun. They opined that the wound to Sue Jack's chest was the result of a contact or close range shot with the gun barrel being less than two inches away when the gun was fired.
Hawn also presented evidence demonstrating Sue Jack's impulsivity and dramatic mood swings, particularly when she drank alcohol. Sue Jack's blood-alcohol level was .257 at the time of this shooting. Hawn also presented evidence that Ms. Jack had previously attempted suicide in 1982 and had contemplated suicide in 1991, in the fall of 1996, and again as recently as two weeks before this shooting, and that Sue Jack exhibited many risk factors for suicide.
From his conviction and sentence for murder with a firearm specification, Stephen Hawn has appealed to this court asserting nine assignments of error for our consideration.
FIRST ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN PERMITTING EVIDENCE OF PREJUDICIAL "OTHER ACTS" THEREBY DENYING APPELLANT HAWN HIS RIGHTS TO DUE PROCESS OF LAW AND TO A FAIR TRIAL AS GUARANTEED BY THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND ARTICLE I, SECTION OF THE OHIO CONSTITUTION.
SECOND ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN PERMITTING PREJUDICIAL TESTIMONY AS TO THE DECEDENT'S STATE OF MIND THEREBY DENYING APPELLANT HAWN HIS RIGHTS TO DUE PROCESS OF LAW AND TO A FAIR TRIAL AS GUARANTEED BY THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND ARTICLE I. SECTION 16 OF THE OHIO CONSTITUTION.
THIRD ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN PERMITTING IRRELEVANT AND PREJUDICIAL TESTIMONY THEREBY DENYING APPELLANT HAWN HIS RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS OF LAW AND TO A FAIR TRIAL AS GUARANTEED BY THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND ARTICLE 1 SECTION 16 OF THE OHIO CONSTITUTION.
Hawn's first, second, and third assignments of error each concern evidence of Hawn's alleged prior physical abuse of Ms. Jack and her fear of him. Hawn filed a motion in limine prior to trial seeking to exclude the evidence as hearsay. The State argued that the evidence was nevertheless admissible per Evid.R.803(3), as evidence of Sue Jack's state of mind. The trial court ruled that the State could introduce evidence of Sue Jack's state of mind, but that per State v. Apanovitch (1987), 33 Ohio St.3d 19, the State was barred from introducing evidence of why Sue Jack was possessed of that state of mind, that is, why she feared Stephen Hawn.
Again during trial, but before the State's witnesses testified, Hawn renewed his objection to testimony regarding his alleged previous altercations with Sue Jack, particularly incidents in October 1996 and November 1997. Hawn also objected that this evidence was not admissible per Evid.R 404(B) for the purposes stated therein. Once again, the trial court held that it would permit out of court statements that Sue Jack made reflecting her fear of Hawn, but would not permit testimony relating to the reasons for that fear or any specifics about previous interactions between Stephen Hawn and Sue Jack. The testimony that these witnesses then gave is discussed below.
Gary Gilliam-Beale testified that he operates a moving business specializing in "high risk" situations, such as moves by battered women. Gilliam-Beale went on to describe how he moved Sue Jack's possessions out of Hawn's residence on October 17, 1996, and that he considered the move to be "hot" because he expected it to be a most threatening situation. Based upon his observations of Sue Jack during the move, Gilliam-Beale testified that she
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Ohio DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|