State v. Carter

As his single proposition of law in this appeal appellant asserts that it was prejudicial error for the trial court “to permit the state to introduce in evi*81deuce, under Section 2945.59 of the Eevised Code, evidence of prior or subsequent acts without proving that those acts were committed by the defendant.”

Specifically, appellant’s complaint is that the evidence in respect to the identity of the Golden Point robber, as contained in the testimony of witnesses Collins and Holden, was insufficient to establish that the person who committed that robbery was the appellant; that therefore such…