Legal Opinion
State v. Smith
Ohio Supreme Court
Decided March 7, 1990No. Nos. 88-768 and 89-151PublishedCited by 101 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtMoyer, C.J.
The state asserts five propositions of law, one of which is related to both the Warren County and Hamilton County trials. We address this issue first.
I
The principal issue is whether the trial courts erred in allowing evidence of other acts to be introduced at each trial pursuant to R.C. 2945.59 or Evid. R. 404(B). For the reasons stated below, we hold that the challenged evidence was properly admitted pursuant to R.C. 2945.59 and Evid. R. 404(B).
This court has examined admissibility of “other acts” evidence in a number of decisions. We have stated the general rule to be “that in a criminal…
2Cases cited21 opinions
- Chapman v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
- Ohio v. RobertsSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
- State v. JenkinsOhio Supreme Court · 1984
- State v. DeemOhio Supreme Court · 1988
- State v. BarfieldSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1979
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by101 opinions
- State v. BeyOhio Supreme Court · 1999
- State v. LoweOhio Supreme Court · 1994
- State v. ColeyOhio Supreme Court · 2001
- State v. HuttonOhio Supreme Court · 1990
- State v. CrottsOhio Supreme Court · 2004
96 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.