# State v. Adrian

> Ohio Court of Appeals · August 11, 2006 · 168 Ohio App. 3d 300

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3716602

## Case

- **Full name:** The STATE of Ohio, Appellee, v. ADRIAN, Appellant
- **Court:** Ohio Court of Appeals
- **Decided:** August 11, 2006
- **Citations:** 168 Ohio App. 3d 300; 2006 Ohio 4143; 859 N.E.2d 1007
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Donovan
- **Judges:** Wolff, Fain, Donovan
- **Cited by:** 15 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/3716602

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3716602. Public record. Not legal advice.