State v. Gilmore

I certainly agree with the majority’s conclusion that the subject matter of the improperly excluded testimony (i.e., entrapment defense) was apparent from the context and nature of the questions posited by defense counsel during appellee’s direct examination. Cf. Price v. Daugherty (1982), 5 Ohio App. 3d 157; Bilikam v. Bilikam (1982), 2 Ohio App. 3d 300, 3041; United States v. Callahan (C.A. 6, 1977), 551 F. 2d 733.2 See, also, 1 Weissenberger, Ohio Evidence (1985), Section 103.2, However, I part company with this court’s conclusion that under Evid. R. 103(A) the exclusion of this crucial…