"[I]t is well settled that when a court has sustained objections to an inquiry during the examination in chief, a statement must be made as to what the expected answer would be in order that the reviewing court can determine whether or not the [ruling] is prejudicial."
How later courts described this case
- "[I]t is well settled that when a court has sustained objections to an inquiry during the examination in chief, a statement must be made as to what the expected answer would be in order that the reviewing court can determine whether or not the [ruling] is prejudicial."
- judgment will not be reversed because of juror misconduct unless prejudice is shown
- juror had brief conversation with witness
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Holmes, J.,
concurring. I must concur in the judgment because all of the elements of a violation of R. C. 2921.34 were regrettably present in this case. However, I do so reluctantly for it is my sincere belief that this case presents an instance of prosecutorial overkill, a circumstance which should not be furthered by our law enforcement officials.
W. Brown, J., concurs in the foregoing concurring opinion.