In any criminal case in which the defendant's motive or intent, the absence of mistake or accident on his part, or the defendant's scheme, plan, or system in doing an act is material, any acts of the defendant which tend to show his motive or intent, the absence of mistake or accident on his part, or the defendant's scheme, plan, or system in doing the act in question may be proved, whether they are contemporaneous with or prior or subsequent thereto, notwithstanding that such proof may show or tend to show the commission of another crime by the defendant.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 497
cases (83 in the last 5 years), 1954–2026 · leading case: State v. Williams, 2012 Ohio 5695 (Ohio 2012).
State v. Williams, 2012 Ohio 5695 (Ohio 2012). · cites it 12ד404(B) is in accord with R.C. 2945.59 in that it precludes the admission of evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts offered to prove the character of an accused in order to show that the accused acted in conformity therewith, but it does not preclude admission of that evidence…”
State v. Williams, 2011 Ohio 5650 (Ohio Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 31ד404(B) and R.C. 2945.59,” indicating that it intended to admit into evidence prior allegations of sexual abuse committed by Williams against a teenage boy, “A.”
State v. Armengau, 2017 Ohio 4452 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 10דLegal Standards {¶ 69} Evidence of other acts of the defendant, different from those for which the defendant is on trial, is generally not admissible when the purpose is to show the defendant's character, or propensity to commit crime.”
State v. Blankenburg, 966 N.E.2d 958 (Ohio Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 9ד” {¶ 65} R.C. 2945.59 states: In any criminal case in which the defendant’s motive or intent, the absence of mistake or accident on his part, or the defendant’s scheme, plan, or system in doing an act is material, any acts of the defendant which tend to show his motive or…”
State v. Smith, 551 N.E.2d 190 (Ohio 1990). · cites it 11דI The principal issue is whether the trial courts erred in allowing evidence of other acts to be introduced at each trial pursuant to R.C. 2945.59 or Evid. R. 404(B). For the reasons stated below, we hold that the challenged evidence was properly admitted pursuant to R.”
State v. Bernard, 2018 Ohio 351 (Ohio Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 10ד404(B) and R.C. 2945.59 to show appellant’s identity, knowledge, absence of mistake, common scheme or plan, and modus operandi.”
State v. Thomas (Slip Opinion), 2017 Ohio 8011 (Ohio 2017). · cites it 4ד404(B) and R.C. 2945.59 “preclude admission of other acts evidence to prove a character trait in order to demonstrate conduct in conformity with that trait,” State v.”
State v. Jamison, 552 N.E.2d 180 (Ohio 1990). · cites it 5דHe argues they were sufficiently dissimilar in details to the charged offenses as not to form a common plan or scheme which would establish appellant’s identity.”
State v. Swing, 2017 Ohio 8039 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 6ד404(B) and R.C. 2945.59, or, at the very least, Evid.”
State v. Smith, 617 N.E.2d 1160 (Ohio Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 10ד05(D) because it failed to constitute one of the specific exceptions of R.C. 2945.59, and that its admission constituted prejudicial error.”
State v. Boles, 2013 Ohio 5202 (Ohio Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 5ד{¶ 18} Of particular relevance to the case at bar is R.C. 2945.59, which provides: "[i]n any criminal case in which the defendant's motive or intent * * * is material, any acts of the defendant which tend to show his motive or intent, the absence of mistake or accident on his…”
State v. Kaufman, 2010 Ohio 1536 (Ohio Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 8ד" {¶ 172} Because we are looking at the admission of sexual-activity evidence from two different victims that do not involve the origin of semen, pregnancy, or disease, the other-acts evidence must be admissible pursuant to R.C. 2945.59, which states: - 48 - {¶ 173} "In any…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.