State v. Baldwin, 12-08-02 (4-20-2009)
Ohio Court of Appeals
1Dissent
{¶ 31} Respectfully, I dissent from the result reached by the majority in regard to the second assignment of error. I would sustain the second assignment of error, which would render moot the first and third assignments of error.
{¶ 32} At issue is Longbrake's testimony that, "I worked first shift, and we would take a consumer that was two on one in the community, we took him through McDonald's; and later on she — ." (Trial Tr., Mar. 28, 2008, at 270:20-23). During a sidebar held outside the hearing of the jury, the state represented that the evidence was admissible to prove a "common plan or…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- United States v. HastingSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
- State v. LottOhio Supreme Court · 1990
- State v. JamisonOhio Supreme Court · 1990
- State v. BroomOhio Supreme Court · 1988
- State v. CurryOhio Supreme Court · 1975
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.