Youngstown Daily Legal News

Justices rule admission of evidence must be reviewed using abuse of discretion standard

JESSICA SHAMBAUGH
Special to the Legal News
Published: June 11, 2012

The Supreme Court of Ohio recently ruled that trial courts have a wide allowance when determining the admissibility of evidence, and appeals regarding evidence admitted should only be reviewed for an abuse of discretion.

In its 7-0 decision yesterday, the high court reversed a decision from a Medina County appellate court assessing the admission of evidence against Carl Morris under a review of law rather than for an abuse of discretion.

“Trial court decisions regarding the admissibility of other-acts evidence under Evid.R. 404(B) are evidentiary determinations that rest within the sound discretion of the trial court. Appeals of such decisions are considered by an appellate court under an abuse-of-discretion standard of review,” Ohio Supreme Court Justice Robert Cupp wrote for the court.

Case summary details that a jury convicted Morris of two counts of rape involving a minor.

At the trial, the victim’s mother testified about Morris’ daily sexual advances, verbal and mental abuse, and his abusive relationship with her family’s dog. The victim’s older sister provided testimony about Morris’ sexual advances toward her.

Morris’ counsel objected, arguing that the testimony improperly addressed Morris’ character. The judge, however, held that the evidence showed Morris’ “motive, opportunity, intent or purpose, preparation, or plan to commit the offense charged, or knowledge or circumstances surrounding the offense charged.”

The court ruled that Ohio’s rules of evidence permitted the admission of evidence for such cause and allowed the testimony to continue. To address the concerns, the court gave the jury instructions stating that the testimony was limited to showing the things outlined under Ohio law, and should not be used to portray Morris’ character.

On appeal to the 9th District Court of Appeals, Morris claimed the trial court “abused its discretion and acted unreasonably when it admitted the state’s other-acts testimony” because the incidents described were not related to the admissible exceptions outlined by Ohio law.

The district court reviewed the alleged error using a de novo standard and ruled that testimony regarding Morris’ treatment of a dog and allegations about prior sexual advances was improperly admitted.

The state filed an appeal with the Ohio Supreme Court, contending that the appellate panel should have only reviewed the assignment of error for an abuse of discretion.

On review, the high court held that an appellate court must only use an abuse-of-discretion standard when addressing a lower court’s decision to admit evidence.

“It is not sufficient for an appellate court to determine that a trial court abused its discretion simply because the appellate court might not have reached the same conclusion or is, itself, less persuaded by the trial court’s reasoning process than by the countervailing arguments,” Cupp stated.

The justices found that the appellate court applied the evidence rule to the trial court’s decision so that the items listed as admissible evidence were all-inclusive. They determined that the language of the rule showed it was not intended to be all-inclusive and that the appellate court had incorrectly interpreted the law.

“The use of the words ‘may’ and ‘such as’ in the rule suggests that the trial judge has considerable discretion to determine whether the specific evidence is of such a nature that it falls within one of the other purposes for which the evidence may be admitted and, if it does, whether in fact it should be admitted, considering, among other things, the principles set out in Evid.R. 402 and 403,” Cupp continued.

Ruling that the 9th District was improperly narrow in its assessment of the evidence in relation to the Ohio evidence rules and that the improper standard of review was used, the justices reversed the judgment and remanded for further review.

“To the extent that the appellate court reviewed de novo a trial court decision as to whether certain evidence was admissible, the appellate court erroneously departed from a well-established principle,” Cupp stated.

“This matter is remanded to the appellate court with instructions to apply an abuse-of-discretion standard and, if appropriate, for consideration of appellee-defendant’s remaining assigned errors, which the appellate court initially determined to be moot.”

Morris’ attorney, David Sheldon of Medina, was unable to be reached for comment prior to press deadline.

The Medina County Prosecutor’s Office did not immediately return calls for comment.

The case is cited State v. Morris, case No. 2012-Ohio-2407.

[Back]