Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Fry v. King

Ohio Court of Appeals

Decided March 4, 2011No. 2010 CA 12Published

1ConcurrenceFroelich, Judge

{¶ 126} I concur with Judge Donovan that the expert’s testimony was admissible because he verified the measurements that were taken by his staff. I also concur with Judge Grady that this verification could not be by means of Google Earth, but I find the record sufficient to support a finding that the expert, by examining photographs that were admitted and his personal view of the scene, could render his own opinion without relying on the independent measurements of his staff.

{¶ 127} Appellee argues that the staff measurements were admissible as business records pursuant to Evid. R. 803(6).…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Melendez-Diaz v. MassachusettsSupreme Court of the United States · 2009
  2. State v. LanierOhio Court of Appeals · 2010

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API