Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

State of Ohio v. Christopher M. Viera

October 12, 2011

STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE
v.
CHRISTOPHER M. VIERA DEFENDANT-APPELLANT



CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING:Appeal from the Court of Common Pleas, Case No. 09 CRI 09 0444B Affirmed

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Farmer, J.

Cite as State v. Viera,

JUDGMENT:

JUDGES: Hon. William B. Hoffman, P.J. Hon. Sheila G. Farmer, J. Hon. John W. Wise, J.

OPINION

{¶1} On September 18, 2009, the Delaware County Grand Jury indicted appellant, Christopher Viera, on two counts of theft in violation of R.C. 2913.02, one count of receiving stolen property in violation of R.C. 2913.51, and one count of burglary in violation of R.C. 2911.12. Said charges arose from the theft of a motor vehicle and then some items from the garage of Gary Glass.

{¶2} On January 21 and 25, 2011, appellant filed two motions to exclude the testimony of Carla Durham, the state's forensic expert, citing discovery violations under Crim.R. 16(K). Both motions were denied.

{¶3} A jury trial commenced on January 25, 2011. The trial court granted appellant's Crim.R. 29 motion on one of the theft counts, theft of a motor vehicle. The jury found appellant guilty of the remaining theft count and the receiving stolen property count, and not guilty of the burglary count. By judgment entry of sentence filed January 27, 2011, the trial court sentenced appellant to an aggregate term of thirty months in prison.

{¶4} Appellant filed an appeal and this matter is now before this court for consideration. Assignments of error are as follows:

I

{¶5} "THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN PERMITTING THE STATE'S EXPERT WITNESS TO TESTIFY DESPITE THE FAILURE OF THE STATE TO COMPLY WITH OHIO RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE RULE 16(K)."

II

{¶6} "THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN PERMITTING THE STATE TO CALL A WITNESS NOT DISCLOSED IN DISCOVERY." III

{¶7} "THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY PERMITTING THE STATE TO INTRODUCE EXHIBITS THAT WERE NOT DISCLOSED IN DISCOVERY." IV

{ΒΆ8} "THE CUMULATIVE ERRORS OF THE TRIAL COURT IN PERMITTING THE STATE TO VIOLATE CRIMINAL ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.