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. Issac Wilcox

October 20, 2011

STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE
v.
ISSAC WILCOX DEFENDANT-APPELLANT



Criminal Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Case No. CR-540046

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Colleen Conway Cooney, J.:

Cite as State v. Wilcox,

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION

JUDGMENT:

AFFIRMED

BEFORE: Cooney, J., Stewart, P.J., and S. Gallagher, J.

{¶1} Defendant-appellant, Issac Wilcox ("Wilcox"), appeals his kidnapping, domestic violence, aggravated menacing, and having a weapon under disability convictions. Finding no merit to his appeal, we affirm.

{¶2} In August 2010, Wilcox was charged in a nine-count indictment with one count of felonious assault, two counts of kidnapping, one count of domestic violence, four counts of aggravated menacing, and one count of having a weapon under disability. The felonious assault and kidnapping charges carried one- and three-year firearm specifications.

{¶3} Prior to the start of a jury trial, the State nolled the felonious assault charge and one of the kidnapping charges. The case proceeded to trial, and Wilcox was found guilty of all seven remaining charges, as well as a three-year firearm specification for the single count of kidnapping. The trial court sentenced Wilcox to a total of nine years in prison.

{¶4} Wilcox now appeals, raising two assignments of error.

{¶5} In his first assignment of error, Wilcox argues that he was denied his constitutional right to a fair trial because the jury was repeatedly exposed to prejudicial evidence.

{¶6} As a basic principle, all relevant evidence is admissible, unless the probative value of that evidence is substantially outweighed by its prejudicial effect. Evid.R. 403. "Relevant" evidence is defined as evidence having any tendency to make a fact of consequence to the determination of the action more or less probable than it would be without the evidence. See Evid.R. 401. The admission or exclusion of relevant evidence rests within the sound discretion of the trial court. State v. Sage (1987), 31 Ohio St.3d 173, 510 N.E.2d 343. "[A] trial court's decision to admit or exclude evidence 'will not be reversed unless there has been a clear and prejudicial abuse of discretion.'" State v. Hancock, 108 Ohio St.3d 57, 2006-Ohio-160, 840 N.E.2d 1032, quoting O'Brien v. Angley (1980), 63 Ohio St.2d 159, 163, 407 N.E.2d 490. "The term 'abuse of discretion' connotes more than an error of law or judgment; it implies that the court's attitude is unreasonable, arbitrary or unconscionable." Blakemore v. Blakemore (1983), 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 219, 450 N.E.2d 1140.

{¶7} We first note that Wilcox's counsel failed to object to all but one of the comments that he now argues was prejudicial. Having failed to object to the testimony during the trial, Wilcox has waived all but plain error. Plain error is an obvious error or defect in the trial proceedings that affects a substantial right. Crim.R. 52(B). Under this standard, reversal is warranted only when the outcome of the trial would have been different without the error. State v. Long (1978), 53 Ohio St.2d 91, 372 N.E.2d 804, paragraph two of the syllabus.

{ΒΆ8} In regard to the sole comment to which Wilcox's counsel objected, it was on cross-examination by Wilcox's counsel that the alleged ...


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.