right to present defense in Ohio

2025“This right ‘is in plain terms the right to present a defense’ and is ‘a fundamental element of due process of law.’” State v. McIntosh, 2003-Ohio-3824 , ¶ 17 (1st Dist.), quoting Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14, 19 (1967).

2023The right to compulsory process has been described as “the right to present a defense, the right to present the defendant’s version of the facts as well as the prosecution’s to the jury so it may decide where the truth lies. * * * This right is a fundamental element of due process of law.” Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14, 19 , 87 S.Ct. 1920 , 18 L.E.2d 1090 (1967).

2025We disagree. {¶ 22} In support of its contention that the trial court’s warning that Phillips was giving up the right to present any defenses informed Phillips that he was giving up the right to compulsory process, the state cites Lakewood v. Papadelis, 32 Ohio St.3d 1 (1987), in which the Supreme Court of Ohio stated: “The right to offer the testimony of witnesses, and to compel their attendance, if necessary, is in plain terms the right to present a defense, the right to present the defendant’s version of the facts as well as the prosecution’s to the jury so it may decide where the truth lie

2024Compare Papadelis, 32 Ohio St.3d at 4 (observing that the effect of the sanction of excluding Papadelis’s defense witnesses was to deny Papadelis the right to present a defense). {¶ 74} Lathan emphasizes that the video would have bolstered his defense because it was independent evidence that he had reason to fear imminent death or serious bodily harm by A.R.

2023Wayne No. 18AP0031, 2019-Ohio-4305, ¶ 18 . {¶24} While a defendant does have a constitutional right to present a defense, he does not have an unfettered right to present evidence that is “incompetent, privileged, or otherwise inadmissible under standard rules of evidence.” Taylor v. Illinois, 484 U.S. 400, 410 (1988). “[S]tate and federal rulemakers have broad latitude under the Constitution to establish rules excluding evidence from criminal trials.

2020A defendant does not have an “unfettered right” to present evidence that is “incompetent, privileged, or otherwise inadmissible under standard rules of evidence.” Taylor v. Illinois, 484 U.S. 400, 410 (1988).

2020See also State v. Swann, 119 Ohio St.3d 552, 555 , 2008-Ohio-4837 , ¶ 13 (noting that the right to present a defense “is not absolute and does not require the admission of all evidence favorable to the defendant.”) (Emphasis in original). “[S]tates have a legitimate interest in ensuring that triers of fact are presented with reliable evidence and have ‘broad latitude under the Constitution to establish rules excluding evidence from criminal trials’ to further that goal.” Wesson at ¶ 59 , quoting Scheffer at 308.

2014Washington at 19-21; State v. Swann, 119 Ohio St.3d 552 , 2008-Ohio-4837 , 895 N.E.2d 821, ¶ 13 .

2025As the United States Supreme Court has long recognized, “The right of an accused in a criminal trial to due process is, in essence, the right to a fair opportunity to defend against the State’s accusations.” Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284, 294 (1973).

2025Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284, 294 (1973).

2013It observed that: “A person’s right to reasonable notice of a charge against him, and an opportunity to be heard in his defense — a right to his day in court — are basic in our system of jurisprudence; and these rights include, as a minimum, a right to examine the witnesses against him, to offer testimony, and to be represented by counsel.” 333 U.S. at 273 . (footnote omitted.) The right to offer the testimony of witnesses, and to compel their attendance, if necessary, is in plain terms the right to present a defense, the right to present the defendant’s version of the facts as well as the pro

2011Discovery in this case, however, was 1 conducted pursuant to the former rule and was completed by July 1, 2010. 12 {¶ 34} “‘A person’s right to reasonable notice of a charge against him, and an opportunity to be heard in his defense — a right to his day in court — are basic in our system of jurisprudence; and these rights include, as a minimum, a right to examine the witnesses against him, to offer testimony, and to be represented by counsel.’ 333 U.S. at 273 [ 68 S.Ct. 499 , 92 L.Ed. 682 ], (footnote omitted). {¶ 35} “The right to offer the testimony of witnesses, and to compel their attend

2026This right is a fundamental element of due process of law.’” State v. Wolfe, 2025-Ohio-866, ¶ 100 (2d Dist.), quoting State v. Santibanez, 2023-Ohio- 3404, ¶ 13 (6th Dist.).

2025“Accordingly, ‘governmental impairment of the accused’s ability to call witnesses on his behalf cannot be tolerated.’” Jackson at ¶ 18, quoting United States v. Bell, 506 F.2d 207, 222 (D.C.

2025For example, it has concluded that a trial court does not sufficiently advise a defendant of the right to compulsory process by advising the defendant that he has “ ‘the right to bring in witnesses to this courtroom to testify for your defense[.]’ ” State v. Senich, 2003-Ohio-5082 , ¶ 33 (8th Dist.); State v. Rosenberg, 2005-Ohio-101, ¶ 14 (8th Dist.).

2023See State v. Bode, 144 Ohio St.3d 155 , 2015-Ohio-1519 , 41 N.E.3d 1156, ¶ 23-27 . {¶37} Ohio’s constitutional text plainly guarantees a criminal defendant the right to present a defense with counsel.

2023See State v. Bode, 144 Ohio St.3d 155 , 2015-Ohio-1519 , 41 N.E.3d 1156, ¶ 23-27 . {¶37} Ohio’s constitutional text plainly guarantees a criminal defendant the right to present a defense with counsel.

2019Entrapment is a defense which is inextricably “intertwined with the issue of intent and is often based on credibility determinations, which are traditionally reserved for jury resolution.” United States v. Santiago-Godinez, 12 F.3d 722, 727 (7th Cir.1993). {¶ 28} By requiring Graham to respond on the merits to the State’s motion in limine before trial began, the court’s action effectively compromised Graham’s rights to be free from self-incrimination, to remain silent, and to the presumption of innocence. {¶ 29} It is talismanic that both the accused and the prosecution have the right to prese

2019The trial court ruled “to limit [any statements regarding entrapment] until such evidence has been provided sufficient to satisfy the requisite burden.” Graham had a right to present the defense for the fact-finder’s determination of whether or not the burden had been met. {¶ 27} Whether a defense is “viable” is a jury question and the trial court “rarely rules on a defense as a matter of law.” United States v. Contento-Pachon, 723 F. 2d 691, 639 (9th Cir.1984).

2008Id. at 1145, 1151 . {¶ 48} The court of appeals affirmed, noting that “the right to present defense witnesses is not absolute.

2008A defendant must abide [by] the rules of evidence and procedure.” Id. at 1151-1152 .

2002Accord United States v. Fuentes-Cariaga (C.A.9, 2000), 209 F.3d 1140 , 1143 (the right to present a defense is fundamental, but exclusion of evidence only reaches constitutional proportions if it significantly undermines the fundamental elements of the accused's defense); United States v. Begay (10th Cir. 1991), 937 F.2d 515 , 523 (the Constitution only requires that a criminal defendant be given the opportunity to present evidence that is relevant, material and favorable to his defense).