# State v. Echols

> Ohio Court of Appeals · June 26, 1998 · 128 Ohio App. 3d 677

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3705713

## Case

- **Full name:** The STATE of Ohio, Appellee, v. ECHOLS, Appellant
- **Court:** Ohio Court of Appeals
- **Decided:** June 26, 1998
- **Citations:** 128 Ohio App. 3d 677; 716 N.E.2d 728
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Bettman
- **Judges:** Bettman, Brown, Gorman, Marianna, Painter
- **Cited by:** 96 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3705713

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that the trial court erred by failing to sever counts where the evidence of the offenses failed to demonstrate a modus operandi, and where the 8 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS likelihood that the jury would misuse the evidence was substantial
- finding cumulative error where, in case involving six eyewitnesses, trial court excluded expert testimony regarding eyewitness identification and allowed defendant to be tried on numerous charges in one trial, and evidence of guilt was not overwhelming
- finding cumulative error “where the evidence of guilt for each incident was not overwhelming”
- finding cumulative error deprived appellant of a fair trial

## Opinion text

Marianna Brown Bettman, Judge,
concurring separately.
While I concur in Judge Painter’s opinion and in the judgment, my views on joinder in this case lie somewhere between that of my two colleagues.
In both
State v.
Lott
59
and again in
State v.
Mills,
60
the Ohio Supreme Court held, although not in the syllabus, that the state could use either the “other acts” test or the “simple and distinct” test to defeat a defense claim of prejudicial joinder. My problem in this case is that when all the claims and all the counts are combined, I do not think that the argument that joinder is prejudicial can be overcome. However, I am equally convinced that under either the “simple and distinct” test or the admittedly stricter “other-acts” test, some combination of these claims and counts can be tried together. This is what must be sorted out on remand. The decision as to which of the counts can properly be joined will depend on the analysis used.
59
. (1990), 51 Ohio St.3d 160 , 555 N.E.2d 293 , certiorari denied (1990), 498 U.S. 1017 , 111 S.Ct. 591 , 112 L.Ed.2d 596 .
60
. (1992), 62 Ohio St.3d 357 , 582 N.E.2d 972 , certiorari denied (1992), 505 U.S. 1227 , 112 S.Ct. 3048 , 120 L.Ed.2d 915 .

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3705713. Public record. Not legal advice.