# State v. Secessions

> Ohio Court of Appeals · November 23, 2011 · 196 Ohio App. 3d 741

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9802348

## Case

- **Full name:** The STATE of Ohio, Appellee, v. SECESSIONS, Appellant
- **Court:** Ohio Court of Appeals
- **Decided:** November 23, 2011
- **Citations:** 196 Ohio App. 3d 741; 965 N.E.2d 359; 2011 Ohio 6066
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Belfance
- **Judges:** Dickinson, Belfance, Carr
- **Cited by:** 4 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/9802348

## Opinion text

Belfance, Presiding Judge,
concurring.
{¶ 37} I concur. I write separately to emphasize that I do not condone the conduct of the prosecutor in failing to disclose the information concerning the alleged bribe to defense counsel and eliciting this testimony from the witness. However, I agree that in light of the specific facts presented and our standard of review, the trial court’s failure to sua sponte declare a mistrial does not rise to the level of plain error. The alleged bribe was not made by Secessions or a member of Secessions’s family, and, therefore, Secessions was not directly connected to the bribe. Accordingly, I concur.
*753 Carr, Judge, concurring in judgment only.
{¶ 38} I join in Judge Belfance’s concerns in her separate opinion. I concur separately on the basis that I would analyze the discovery dispute differently than the majority. First, the prosecutor had a mandatory duty to disclose the alleged bribery statement. Second, Secessions was not prejudiced because the testimony was stricken by the trial court and the jury was instructed to disregard it.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9802348. Public record. Not legal advice.