# State v. Arnold (Slip Opinion)

> Ohio Supreme Court · April 20, 2016 · 147 Ohio St. 3d 138

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9822795

## Case

- **Full name:** The State of Ohio, Appellee, v. Arnold, Appellant
- **Court:** Ohio Supreme Court
- **Decided:** April 20, 2016
- **Citations:** 147 Ohio St. 3d 138; 62 N.E.3d 153; 2016 Ohio 1595
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Lanzinger
- **Judges:** O'Connor, Pfeifer, Kennedy, French, O'Donnell, Lanzinger, O'Neill
- **Cited by:** 77 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/9822795

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that because the defendant did not raise to the trial court his claim of violation of his right to confront witnesses under the Sixth Amendment, “the claim is thus waived unless plain error is shown”
- explaining that standing involves the right of a party who has suffered actual injury to seek redress from the court

## Opinion text

*162 Lanzinger, J.,
dissenting.
{¶ 88} This is simply a municipal court case in which the alleged victim, Lester Arnold, father of the defendant, Jeffrey Arnold, had a change of heart and did not wish to testify against his son on an assault charge. When called to the stand, Lester attempted to invoke the Fifth Amendment protection of the right against self-incrimination.
{¶ 89} This is a fact-specific case that, despite the treatise of the lead opinion, articulates no new legal principle. A witness may indeed have reason to invoke the Fifth Amendment protection to remain silent, even during a bench trial. It is the duty of the court to determine whether the privilege is justified under the circumstances. Hoffman v. United States, 341 U.S. 479, 486 , 71 S.Ct. 814 , 95 L.Ed. 1118 (1951); State v. Landrum, 53 Ohio St.3d 107, 120 , 559 N.E.2d 710 (1990). No bright-line rule can tell us whether answering a question would cause injurious disclosure to the witness; yet at the very least the court must inquire to ensure that the witness is invoking the privilege properly, which in this case it did not do.
{¶ 90} In my view, this is a case of error correction only, and I would hold that the matter was improvidently accepted.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9822795. Public record. Not legal advice.