other-acts test in Ohio

2025Sims, ¶ 39; E.g., State v. Lott, 51 Ohio St.3d 160, 163 (1990). “ ‘The two tests are disjunctive, so that the satisfaction of one negates a Hocking App. No. 23CA3 9 defendant's claim of prejudice without consideration of the other.’ ” State v. Wright, 2017-Ohio-8702, ¶ 51 , quoting State v. Sullivan, 2011-Ohio-6384 , ¶ 23 (10th Dist.).

2025However, we do not need to consider whether the trial court plainly erred, because, as Mitchell admits in his brief, the evidence presented was simple and direct. “‘[W]hen simple and direct evidence exists, an accused is not prejudiced by joinder regardless of the nonadmissibility of evidence of these crimes as “other acts” under Evid.R. 404(B).’” Belle, 2019-Ohio-787 , at ¶ 24 quoting Lott, 51 Ohio St.3d at 163 ; see also State v. Franklin, 62 Ohio St.3d 118, 122 , (1991) (“[I]f the State can meet the joinder test [i.e., the simple and direct test], it need not meet the stricter other-acts te

2023“Thus, policy reasons for the other-acts test should not seep into the application of the joinder test.” Id.

2023Judge Vukovich further noted that “[a] claim of prejudice can be negated if the evidence of each joined offense is simple and direct.” Id. at 199 , citing LaMar, 95 Ohio St.3d 181 , 767 N.E.2d 166 , at ¶ 50 and 52. {¶ 50} As indicated, the evidence here concerning A.H. was not weak.

2022Evid.R. 404(B) does not allow the use of evidence of a defendant's other acts solely to prove that a "defendant has the character or propensity to commit a crime." State v. Smith, 162 Ohio St.3d 353 , 2020-Ohio-4441, ¶ 36 .

2022Evid.R. 404(B) does not allow the use of evidence of a defendant's other acts solely to prove that a "defendant has the character or propensity to commit a crime." State v. Smith, 162 Ohio St.3d 353 , 2020-Ohio-4441, ¶ 36 .

2020Id. at 60 .

2012Huddleston v. United States, 485 U.S. 681 , 108 S.Ct. 1496 , 99 L.Ed.2d 771 (1988).

2012Huddleston v. United States, 485 U.S. 681 , 108 S.Ct. 1496 , 99 L.Ed.2d 771 (1988).

2012Nos. 96527 and 96528, 2011-Ohio-6274, fn. 2 .

2012State v. Williams, 195 Ohio App.3d 807 , 2011-Ohio-5650 , 961 N.E.2d 1200 (8th Dist.; en banc), ¶ 64. {¶ 28} The majority opinion only cursorily addresses whether the other- acts testimony unfairly prejudiced Williams, even though that is an essential part of an other-acts analysis.

2012State v. Williams, 195 Ohio App.3d 807 , 2011-Ohio-5650 , 961 N.E.2d 1200 (8th Dist.; en banc), ¶ 64. {¶ 28} The majority opinion only cursorily addresses whether the other- acts testimony unfairly prejudiced Williams, even though that is an essential part of an other-acts analysis.

2011Hancock, 108 Ohio St.3d 57, ¶ 122 . {¶ 20} The other-acts exception is not applicable in the current case.

2010We note that "[t]he admissibility of other acts evidence is carefully limited because of the substantial danger that the jury will convict the defendant solely because it assumes that the defendant has a propensity to commit criminal acts, or deserves punishment regardless of whether he or she committed the crime charged in the indictment." Schaim, 65 Ohio St.3d at 59 , citing State v. Curry (1975), 43 Ohio St.2d - 47 - 66, 68, 72 O.O.2d 37 , 330 N.E.2d 720 . {¶ 170} Had there been separate trials for the offenses against the different victims, a request to admit testimony from other victims w

2010We note that "[t]he admissibility of other acts evidence is carefully limited because of the substantial danger that the jury will convict the defendant solely because it assumes that the defendant has a propensity to commit criminal acts, or deserves punishment regardless of whether he or she committed the crime charged in the indictment." Schaim, 65 Ohio St.3d at 59 , citing State v. Curry (1975), 43 Ohio St.2d - 47 - 66, 68, 72 O.O.2d 37 , 330 N.E.2d 720 . {¶ 170} Had there been separate trials for the offenses against the different victims, a request to admit testimony from other victims w

2010State v. Adams (1980), 62 Ohio St.2d 151, 158 , 16 O.O.3d 169 , 404 N.E.2d 144 . {¶ 167} Kaufman argues that neither the other-acts test nor the joinder test was satisfied in this case.

2010State v. Adams (1980), 62 Ohio St.2d 151, 158 , 16 O.O.3d 169 , 404 N.E.2d 144 . {¶ 167} Kaufman argues that neither the other-acts test nor the joinder test was satisfied in this case.

2010We note that “[t]he admissibility of other acts evidence is carefully limited because of the substantial danger that the jury will convict the defendant solely because it assumes that the defendant has a propensity to commit criminal acts, or deserves punishment regardless of whether he or she committed the crime charged in the indictment.” Schaim, 65 Ohio St.3d at 59 , 600 N.E.2d 661 , citing State v. Cury (1975), 43 Ohio St.2d 66, 68 , 72 O.O.2d 37 , 330 N.E.2d 720 . {¶ 170} Had there been separate trials for the offenses against the different victims, a request to admit testimony from other

2010We note that "[t]he admissibility of other acts evidence is carefully limited because of the substantial danger that the jury will convict the defendant solely because it assumes that the defendant has a propensity to commit criminal acts, or deserves punishment regardless of whether he or she committed the crime charged in the indictment." Schaim, 65 Ohio St.3d at 59 , citing State v. Curry (1975), 43 Ohio St.2d - 47 - 66, 68, 72 O.O.2d 37 , 330 N.E.2d 720 . {¶ 170} Had there been separate trials for the offenses against the different victims, a request to admit testimony from other victims w

2009We have stated that when other-acts evidence is admitted for a limited purpose, “the jury should be instructed that such evidence must not be considered by them as any proof whatsoever that the accused did any act alleged in the indictment.” State v. Flonnory (1972), 31 Ohio St.2d 124, 129 , 60 O.O.2d 95 , 285 N.E.2d 726 .

2009We have stated that when other-acts evidence is admitted for a limited purpose, “the jury should be instructed that such evidence must not be considered by them as any proof whatsoever that the accused did any act alleged in the indictment.” State v. Flonnory (1972), 31 Ohio St.2d 124, 129 , 60 O.O.2d 95 , 285 N.E.2d 726 .

2005Id.

1993As the Ohio Supreme Court has stated in State v. Burson (1974), 38 Ohio St.2d 157, 158 , 67 O.O.2d 174, 175 , 311 N.E.2d 526 , 528: “[EJvidence of other acts of a defendant is admissible only when it ‘tends to show1 one of the matters enumerated in the statute [R.C. 2945.59, motive, intent, the absence of mistake or accident, scheme, plan or system] and only when it is relevant to proof of guilt of the defendant of the offense in question.” (Emphasis sic.) Citing State v. Hector (1969), 19 Ohio St.2d 167 , 48 O.O.2d 199 , 249 N.E.2d 912 .

1993As the Ohio Supreme Court has stated in State v. Burson (1974), 38 Ohio St.2d 157, 158 , 67 O.O.2d 174, 175 , 311 N.E.2d 526 , 528: “[EJvidence of other acts of a defendant is admissible only when it ‘tends to show1 one of the matters enumerated in the statute [R.C. 2945.59, motive, intent, the absence of mistake or accident, scheme, plan or system] and only when it is relevant to proof of guilt of the defendant of the offense in question.” (Emphasis sic.) Citing State v. Hector (1969), 19 Ohio St.2d 167 , 48 O.O.2d 199 , 249 N.E.2d 912 .

1993As the Ohio Supreme Court has stated in State v. Burson (1974), 38 Ohio St.2d 157, 158 , 67 O.O.2d 174, 175 , 311 N.E.2d 526 , 528: “[EJvidence of other acts of a defendant is admissible only when it ‘tends to show1 one of the matters enumerated in the statute [R.C. 2945.59, motive, intent, the absence of mistake or accident, scheme, plan or system] and only when it is relevant to proof of guilt of the defendant of the offense in question.” (Emphasis sic.) Citing State v. Hector (1969), 19 Ohio St.2d 167 , 48 O.O.2d 199 , 249 N.E.2d 912 .

1993As the Ohio Supreme Court has stated in State v. Burson (1974), 38 Ohio St.2d 157, 158 , 67 O.O.2d 174, 175 , 311 N.E.2d 526 , 528: “[EJvidence of other acts of a defendant is admissible only when it ‘tends to show1 one of the matters enumerated in the statute [R.C. 2945.59, motive, intent, the absence of mistake or accident, scheme, plan or system] and only when it is relevant to proof of guilt of the defendant of the offense in question.” (Emphasis sic.) Citing State v. Hector (1969), 19 Ohio St.2d 167 , 48 O.O.2d 199 , 249 N.E.2d 912 .