# State v. Trimble

> Ohio Supreme Court · June 30, 2009 · 122 Ohio St. 3d 297

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9802126

## Case

- **Full name:** The State of Ohio, Appellee, v. Trimble, Appellant
- **Court:** Ohio Supreme Court
- **Decided:** June 30, 2009
- **Citations:** 122 Ohio St. 3d 297; 911 N.E.2d 242; 2009 Ohio 2961
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Pfeifer
- **Judges:** Moyer, Stratton, O'Connor, O'Donnell, Lanzinger, Cupp, Pfeifer
- **Cited by:** 288 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/9802126

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- concluding that Reckless Homicide is a lesser-included offense of felony murder, because, among other things, “a defendant cannot cause the death of a person under R.C. 2903.01(B) without also causing the death of that person under R.C. 2903.041. In purposely causing the death…
- holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying defense counsel’s motion for a mistrial because “[n]othing in the record shows that the outburst had any effect on the jury” and “the trial court’s admonitions focused the jury on the evidence and away from t…
- concluding that, even if trial court’s refusal to instruct on reckless homicide was error, it was harmless because the jury could have found defendant guilty of involuntary manslaughter instead of aggravated murder
- holding that the trial court did not err by denying the defendant’s motion for a mistrial when a reference to the defendant’s prior conviction was brief and isolated, and was followed by a curative instruction

## Opinion text

Pfeifer, J.,
concurring.
{¶ 332} At trial, the prosecutor presented and the trial court allowed unnecessary evidence, including 19 firearms that were not involved in the murders and dozens of pictures that were repetitive. I am troubled by the inclusion of evidence that was so rife with potential prejudice. See Evid.R. 401 and 403. Although whether the jury was prejudiced by this evidence is a close call, I reach the same conclusion as the majority and therefore concur in affirming the sentence of death.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9802126. Public record. Not legal advice.