State v. Faulkner

I

Appellant has presented five propositions of law. Appellant proposes first that it was prejudicial error for the trial court to deny defense counsel the opportunity to conduct a recross-examination of the state’s witness, Donald Cosner, where the prosecution has inquired into new áreas during redirect examination, and that this constitutes a denial of defendant’s right to confront the witnesses against Mm as guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment to *44the United States Constitution and the provisions of Section 10, Article I of the Constitution of Ohio.1

During cross-examination, defense counsel…