 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Eubanks4/22/1999
t be reversed unless it appears from the record that the trial court's discretion had been abused to the material prejudice of the defendant. State v. Hymore (1967), 9 Ohio St.2d 122.
At trial, the defense requested that the trial court redact portions of his taped-recorded confession. Prior to the commencement of trial, appellant withdrew his motion to suppress the statement. After the testimony of Alisha Carpenter, the defense contended that, because of the statements made by Alisha Carpenter, certain parts of the confession were prejudicial to appellant and should be deleted. Defense counsel argued that the references to appellant and his wife filing numerous complaints about domestic violence against each other, appellant's lock and load mind set, and appellant's belief that it is simpler to kill someone with a gun than by a beating were too prejudicial to be heard or considered by the jury. The entire statement was admitted by the trial court.
Appellant's defense was predicated upon the provocation caused by his wife's infidelity. Appellant argued that Lanita Eubanks' purpose in asking if appellant had spoken to their son was to provoke appellant into an act of violence against her. Lanita Eubanks could then use the violent act to cause appellant to be removed from their home so she could carry on her affair with ease. In his statement, appellant buttressed this argument with the alleged past acts of domestic violence of both appellant and his wife. Appellant told the police Lanita Eubanks knew how to make a police report which would cause appellant to leave the house.
Nothing in this testimony or in the references to appellant's state of mind really was affected by the statements made in court by Alisha Carpenter. Appellant's prior use of a pistol in the house to shoot the walls and, apparently, in the direction of Alisha Carpenter's cousin, were irrelevant to his use of a rifle to kill his wife. Obviously, the jury knew appellant kept at least one weapon, the rifle, in the house. There were no statements made to the effect that appellant ever used a weapon against Lanita Eubanks in the alleged acts of domestic violence. Instead, appellant's statement indicated instances of swearing, threats, verbal abuse, and physically striking Lanita Eubanks. Determinations of relevancy and impact on the jury are best decided by the trial court. Renfro v. Black (1990), 52 Ohio St.3d 27.
The most damaging part of appellant's confession was his statement regarding his lock and load attitude which meant appellant considered himself to be past the point of discussion and in a state of war. However, the thrust of appellant's defense was his state of mind at the time of the murder. This statement is directly relevant to this issue. In his statement, appellant asserted that this attitude was in direct response to his wife's actions. Therefore, the statement's relevance outweighed any prejudice to appellant. Also, appellant's prior use of a pistol did not have a significant impact on his statement that it is simpler and faster to take a person out by using a gun than beating them to death. Appellant stated that Lanita Eubanks made him so angry that he wanted to take her out. The jury was well aware of the way in which appellant chose to carry out his intention. Appellant was not prejudiced by the inclusion of these portions of his tape-recorded confession.
Appellant's third assignment of error lacks merit.
V.
Appellant's fourth assignment of error challenges the weight of the evidence admitted which supported the element of prior calculation and design. Appellant submits that the evidence adduced at trial showed that upon his arrival home, app
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Ohio DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|