Opinion

State v. Adrian

  • 168 Ohio App. 3d 300
  • 2006 Ohio 4143
  • 859 N.E.2d 1007
Court
Ohio Court of Appeals
Filed
Aug 11, 2006
Status
Published
Author
Donovan
On the bench
Wolff, Fain, Donovan
Cited by
15 cases

The opinion

Donovan, Judge,

concurring.

{¶ 69} I write separately only to note that I disagree with the majority’s conclusion that the prosecutor’s questions did not cross the line demarcated in

Boston.

By opining that Adrian’s statements were “evasive” and “do not jive,” Deskins’s testimony was clearly intended to suggest that Adrian’s statements were deceptive and misleading. In fact, the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (4th Ed.2004), defines “jive” as slang for “deceptive.”

{¶ 70} However, I find that the improper questions and comments on credibility, taken in the context of the entire trial, do not taint the jury’s verdicts given the evidence adduced by the state. I am satisfied that the jury would have found Adrian guilty even absent these improper questions. Accordingly, I cannot say Adrian has been prejudiced.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.