probable impact error in Ohio

2009Thus, a so-called “[t]rial error” is “error which occurred during the presentation of the case to the jury, and which may therefore be quantitatively assessed in the context of other evidence presented in order to determine whether its admission was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” Fulminante, 499 U.S. at 307-308 , 111 S.Ct. 1246 , 113 L.Ed.2d 302 ; State v. Ahmed, Stark App. No. 2007-CA-00049, 2008-Ohio-389 , 2008 WL 307711 , ¶ 23-24. {¶ 17} “When a claim of harmless error is raised, the appellate court must read the record and decide the probable impact of the error on the minds of the a

2009Thus, a so-called “[t]rial error” is “error which occurred during the presentation of the case to the jury, and which may therefore be quantitatively assessed in the context of other evidence presented in order to determine whether its admission was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” Fulminante, 499 U.S. at 307-308 , 111 S.Ct. 1246 , 113 L.Ed.2d 302 ; State v. Ahmed, Stark App. No. 2007-CA-00049, 2008-Ohio-389 , 2008 WL 307711 , ¶ 23-24. {¶ 17} “When a claim of harmless error is raised, the appellate court must read the record and decide the probable impact of the error on the minds of the a

2009Thus, a so-called “[t]rial error” is “error which occurred during the presentation of the case to the jury, and which may therefore be quantitatively assessed in the context of other evidence presented in order to determine whether its admission was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” Fulminante, 499 U.S. at 307-308 , 111 S.Ct. 1246 , 113 L.Ed.2d 302 ; State v. Ahmed, Stark App. No. 2007-CA-00049, 2008-Ohio-389 , 2008 WL 307711 , ¶ 23-24. {¶ 17} “When a claim of harmless error is raised, the appellate court must read the record and decide the probable impact of the error on the minds of the a

2009Thus, a so-called “[t]rial error” is “error which occurred during the presentation of the case to the jury, and which may therefore be quantitatively assessed in the context of other evidence presented in order to determine whether its admission was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” Fulminante, 499 U.S. at 307-308 , 111 S.Ct. 1246 , 113 L.Ed.2d 302 ; State v. Ahmed, Stark App. No. 2007-CA-00049, 2008-Ohio-389 , 2008 WL 307711 , ¶ 23-24. {¶ 17} “When a claim of harmless error is raised, the appellate court must read the record and decide the probable impact of the error on the minds of the a

2008Instead, the question is whether there is a reasonable possibility that the evidence complained of might have contributed to the conviction." State v. Conway , 108 Ohio St.3d 214 , 2006-Ohio-791 , at ¶ 78 . "`When a claim of harmless error is raised, the appellate court must read the record and decide the probable impact of the error on the minds of the average juror.'" State v. Auld , Delaware App. No. 2006-CAC-120091, 2007-Ohio-3508 , at ¶ 28 , quoting State v. Young (1983), 5 Ohio St.3d 221 , 226 (further citations omitted).

2008Instead, the question is whether there is a reasonable possibility that [exclusion of] the evidence * * * might have contributed to the conviction.” State v. Conway, 108 Ohio St.3d 214 , 2006-Ohio-791 , 842 N.E.2d 996 , at ¶ 78. “ ‘When a claim of harmless error is raised, the appellate court must read the record and decide the probable impact of the error on the minds of the average juror.’ ” State v. Auld, Delaware App. No. 2006-CAC-120091, 2007-Ohio-3508 , 2007 WL 1977748 , at ¶ 28, quoting State v. Young (1983), 5 Ohio St.3d 221, 226 , 5 OBR 484, 450 N.E.2d 1143 .

2012State v. Conway, 108 Ohio St.3d 214, 228 , 2006-Ohio-791 , 842 N.E.2d 996 , citing Chapman at 24 . {¶ 29} “‘“When a claim of harmless error is raised, the appellate court must read the record and decide the probable impact of the error on the minds of the average juror.”’” Obasohan at 397 , quoting State v. Auld, 4th Dist.

2008Instead, the question is whether there is a reasonable possibility that [exclusion of] the evidence * * * might have contributed to the conviction.” State v. Conway, 108 Ohio St.3d 214 , 2006-Ohio-791 , 842 N.E.2d 996 , at ¶ 78. “ ‘When a claim of harmless error is raised, the appellate court must read the record and decide the probable impact of the error on the minds of the average juror.’ ” State v. Auld, Delaware App. No. 2006-CAC-120091, 2007-Ohio-3508 , 2007 WL 1977748 , at ¶ 28, quoting State v. Young (1983), 5 Ohio St.3d 221, 226 , 5 OBR 484, 450 N.E.2d 1143 .

2009Thus, a so-called “[t]rial error” is “error which occurred during the presentation of the case to the jury, and which may therefore be quantitatively assessed in the context of other evidence presented in order to determine whether its admission was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” Fulminante, 499 U.S. at 307-308 , 111 S.Ct. 1246 , 113 L.Ed.2d 302 ; State v. Ahmed, Stark App. No. 2007-CA-00049, 2008-Ohio-389 , 2008 WL 307711 , ¶ 23-24. {¶ 17} “When a claim of harmless error is raised, the appellate court must read the record and decide the probable impact of the error on the minds of the a

2009Thus, a so-called “[t]rial error” is “error which occurred during the presentation of the case to the jury, and which may therefore be quantitatively assessed in the context of other evidence presented in order to determine whether its admission was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” Fulminante, 499 U.S. at 307-308 , 111 S.Ct. 1246 , 113 L.Ed.2d 302 ; State v. Ahmed, Stark App. No. 2007-CA-00049, 2008-Ohio-389 , 2008 WL 307711 , ¶ 23-24. {¶ 17} “When a claim of harmless error is raised, the appellate court must read the record and decide the probable impact of the error on the minds of the a

2008“An appellate court must reverse if the government does not meet its burden.” Auld, citing State v. Perry, 101 Ohio St.3d 118, 121 , 2004-Ohio-297 , 802 N.E.2d 643 . {¶ 24} In determining harmless error, a reviewing court must examine an array of factors, including the importance of the witness’s testimony in the prosecution’s case, the cumulative nature of the testimony, the presence or absence of corroborating or contradictory evidence, the scope of cross-examination otherwise permitted, and the overall strength of the prosecution’s case.

2008“An appellate court must reverse if the government does not meet its burden.” Auld, citing State v. Perry, 101 Ohio St.3d 118, 121 , 2004-Ohio-297 , 802 N.E.2d 643 . {¶ 24} In determining harmless error, a reviewing court must examine an array of factors, including the importance of the witness’s testimony in the prosecution’s case, the cumulative nature of the testimony, the presence or absence of corroborating or contradictory evidence, the scope of cross-examination otherwise permitted, and the overall strength of the prosecution’s case.

2008Id. {¶ 37} Upon review of the record, I find that, beyond a reasonable doubt, the error was harmless and that there is no reasonable probability that the exclusion of evidence may have contributed to the appellant’s conviction. {¶ 38} Officer Clark testified that while he repeatedly admonished appellant to calm down, appellant refused and used profanity at him.