purview defense in Ohio

2001It has been previously held that "[d]ecisions regarding the calling of witnesses are within the purview of defense counsel's trial tactics." State v. Miller (1988), 43 Ohio App.3d 44 , 45 .

2001This court has previously held that "[d]ecisions regarding the calling of witnesses are within the purview of defense counsel's trial tactics." State v. Miller (1988), 43 Ohio App.3d 44 , 45 .

2011No. 05CA008673, 2005-Ohio-4252, at ¶21 , quoting State v. Ambrosio, 9th Dist.

2006No. 05CA008673, 2005-Ohio-4252 , at ¶ 21, quoting State v. Ambrosio, 9th Dist.

1999We have previously held that "[d]ecisions regarding the calling of witnesses are within the purview of defense counsel's trial tactics." State v. Hunt (1984), 20 Ohio App.3d 310 , 312 , citing O'Malley v. United States (C.A. 6, 1961), 285 F.2d 733 .

1990Appellant's counsel interviewed both persons and after the interviews determined in his judgment that "those witnesses would not be beneficial to (appellant's] casa" Thus, whether or not counsel believed the witness would perjure themselves, he would not have called them if they would not aid in appellant's defensa" Decisions regarding the calling of witnesses are within the purview of defense counsel's trial tactics" State v. Hunt (1984), 20 Ohio App. 3d 310 ; O'Mally v. United States (CA 6 1961), 285 F. 2d 733 .

2018Stated differently, “counsel’s decision whether to call a witness falls within the rubric of trial strategy and will not be second-guessed by a reviewing court.” State v. Treesh, 90 Ohio St.3d 460, 490 , 739 N.E.2d 749 (2001).

2018Stated differently, “counsel’s decision whether to call a witness falls within the rubric of trial strategy and will not be second-guessed by a reviewing court.” State v. Treesh, 90 Ohio St.3d 460, 490 , 739 N.E.2d 749 (2001).

2002See State v. Hunt (1984), 20 Ohio App.3d 310 , 312 , 20 OBR 411, 486 N.E.2d 108 ; State v. Reese (1982), 8 Ohio App.3d 202 , 8 OBR 273, 456 N.E.2d 1253 ; see also Lakewood v. Town (1995), 106 Ohio App.3d 521 , 666 N.E.2d 599 (Calling defendant as a witness is within purview of defense counsel's trial tactics).

2002See State v. Hunt (1984), 20 Ohio App.3d 310 , 312 , 20 OBR 411, 486 N.E.2d 108 ; State v. Reese (1982), 8 Ohio App.3d 202 , 8 OBR 273, 456 N.E.2d 1253 ; see also Lakewood v. Town (1995), 106 Ohio App.3d 521 , 666 N.E.2d 599 (Calling defendant as a witness is within purview of defense counsel's trial tactics).

2018Gallia No. 10CA10, 2011-Ohio-3661, at ¶ 30 , quoting State v. Jackson, 4th Dist.

2012“Generally, decisions to call witnesses is within the purview of defense counsel's trial strategy and is not considered deficient performance absent a showing of prejudice.” State v. Spires, Gallia App. No. 10CA10, 2011-Ohio-3661 ; citing, State v. Jackson, Lawrence App. No. 97CA2, 1997 WL 749480 ; citing, State v. Hunt (1984), 20 Ohio App.3d 310, 312 , 486 N.E.2d 108 .

2014Further, Fairfield County, Case No. 14-CA-4 22 “decisions regarding the calling of witnesses are within the purview of defense counsel’s trial tactics.” Id. {¶49} With regards to prescription drug records, Wanosik confirmed that Mother had a prescription for oxycodone when she re-established services.

2014Further, “decisions regarding the calling of witnesses are within the purview of defense counsel’s trial tactics.” Id.

2025State v. Lazzerini, 2021-Ohio-1998, ¶ 42 (5th Dist.) (holding that the “evidence Appellant complains of was not evidence of other acts offered to show he acted in conformity therewith * * * but instead was direct evidence of the acts charged in the instant case."); Roe, supra. {¶25} Even assuming the evidence is within the purview of the rule, it was properly admitted for multiple legitimate purposes under Evid.R. 404(B)(2).

2025Id. {¶22} By the rule’s own terms, the challenged evidence must be evidence of a crime, wrong or act to fall within the purview of the rule; it must not be evidence that goes directly to the charged crime itself.

2025As stated in State v. Thomas, First, it must be evidence of a "crime, wrong, or act." Id.

2018Lorain Nos. 05CA008689 and 05CA008691, 2006-Ohio-764 , 2006 WL 401307 , ¶ 19. {¶ 37} In Mr. Spaulding's case, we conclude that the trial court did not err or abuse its discretion in denying these grounds for relief without a hearing because it correctly found that decisions regarding the calling of witnesses are within the purview of defense counsel's trial tactics.

2014State v. Hanna, 95 Ohio St.3d 285 , 2002-Ohio-2221, ¶ 118 ; State v. Treesh, 90 Ohio St.3d 460, 490 , 739 N.E.2d 749 (2001).

2014State v. Hanna, 95 Ohio St.3d 285 , 2002-Ohio-2221, ¶ 118 ; State v. Treesh, 90 Ohio St.3d 460, 490 , 739 N.E.2d 749 (2001).

2007State v. Cline , Franklin App. No. 05AP-869, 2006-Ohio-4782 , at ¶ 22 . "`[Strategic choices made after thorough investigation of law and facts relevant to plausible options are virtually unchallengeable.'" Id., quoting Wiggins v. Smith (2003), 539 U.S. 510 , 123 S.Ct. 2527 , quoting Strickland , supra, at 690-691 . {¶ 29} Moreover, even assuming appellant could demonstrate that trial counsel's performance was deficient, appellant has not demonstrated prejudice.

2007State v. Cline , Franklin App. No. 05AP-869, 2006-Ohio-4782 , at ¶ 22 . "`[Strategic choices made after thorough investigation of law and facts relevant to plausible options are virtually unchallengeable.'" Id., quoting Wiggins v. Smith (2003), 539 U.S. 510 , 123 S.Ct. 2527 , quoting Strickland , supra, at 690-691 . {¶ 29} Moreover, even assuming appellant could demonstrate that trial counsel's performance was deficient, appellant has not demonstrated prejudice.

2007Absent a showing of prejudice, we will not consider such decisions as deficient performance." State v. Mathias , Franklin App. No. 06AP-1228, 2007-Ohio-6543 , ¶ 36 , citing State v. Dennis , Franklin App. No. 04AP-595, 2005-Ohio-1530 , ¶ 22 . {¶ 34} Finally, Ms. Henderson indeed limited her testimony to events occurring during the time that the former caseworker was assigned to the case, and M.T. had an opportunity to cross-examine her as to which of her factual statements were taken from the FCCS case file, as opposed to those taken from her own experience with the case.

2007Absent a showing of prejudice, we will not consider such decisions as deficient performance." State v. Mathias , Franklin App. No. 06AP-1228, 2007-Ohio-6543 , ¶ 36 , citing State v. Dennis , Franklin App. No. 04AP-595, 2005-Ohio-1530 , ¶ 22 . {¶ 34} Finally, Ms. Henderson indeed limited her testimony to events occurring during the time that the former caseworker was assigned to the case, and M.T. had an opportunity to cross-examine her as to which of her factual statements were taken from the FCCS case file, as opposed to those taken from her own experience with the case.

2007State v. Cline , Franklin App. No. 05AP-869, 2006-Ohio-4782 , at ¶ 22 . "`[Strategic choices made after thorough investigation of law and facts relevant to plausible options are virtually unchallengeable.'" Id., quoting Wiggins v. Smith (2003), 539 U.S. 510 , 123 S.Ct. 2527 , quoting Strickland , supra, at 690-691 . {¶ 29} Moreover, even assuming appellant could demonstrate that trial counsel's performance was deficient, appellant has not demonstrated prejudice.

2007State v. Cline , Franklin App. No. 05AP-869, 2006-Ohio-4782 , at ¶ 22 . "`[Strategic choices made after thorough investigation of law and facts relevant to plausible options are virtually unchallengeable.'" Id., quoting Wiggins v. Smith (2003), 539 U.S. 510 , 123 S.Ct. 2527 , quoting Strickland , supra, at 690-691 . {¶ 29} Moreover, even assuming appellant could demonstrate that trial counsel's performance was deficient, appellant has not demonstrated prejudice.

2006Id. {¶ 12} Further, decisions regarding the calling of witnesses are within the purview of defense counsel's trial tactics.

2005No. 03CA008387, 2004-Ohio-5552 , at ¶ 10 .

2004No. 01CA007899, 2002-Ohio-2644 , at ¶ 21, certiorari denied (2003), 539 U.S. 931 , 123 S.Ct. 2583 , 156 L.Ed.2d 611 , quoting State v. Coulter (1992), 75 Ohio App.3d 219 , 230 . {¶ 11} Appellant has failed to establish that his trial counsel's failure to call Mr. Weissinger and/or Mr. Laurie resulted in prejudice to Appellant.

2004No. 01CA007899, 2002-Ohio-2644 , at ¶ 21, certiorari denied (2003), 539 U.S. 931 , 123 S.Ct. 2583 , 156 L.Ed.2d 611 , quoting State v. Coulter (1992), 75 Ohio App.3d 219 , 230 . {¶ 11} Appellant has failed to establish that his trial counsel's failure to call Mr. Weissinger and/or Mr. Laurie resulted in prejudice to Appellant.