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 v. Daniels

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Fifth District

August 21, 2013

STATE OF OHIO Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
KENJI MICHAEL DANIELS Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the Court of Common Pleas, Case No. 2012-CR-350H

For Plaintiff-Appellee JILL M. COCHRAN

For Defendant-Appellant PATRICIA O'DONNELL KITZLER

Hon. Sheila G. Farmer, P.J. Hon. John W. Wise, J. Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, J.

OPINION

Farmer, P.J.

(¶1} On June 11, 2012, the Richland County Grand Jury indicted appellant, Kenji Michael Daniels, on one count of domestic violence in violation of R.C. 2919.25, one count of failure to comply with order or signal of police officer in violation of R.C. 2921.33 (later amended to fleeing and eluding in violation of R.C. 2921.331), one count of receiving stolen property in violation of R.C. 2913.51, and one count of attempted aggravated burglary in violation of R.C. 2911.11 and 2923.02. Said charges arose from an argument involving appellant's girlfriend, Jessica Mills, while they were at the residence of Ms. Mills's cousin. Following the argument, police initiated an investigation and attempted to speak with appellant which led to a police chase.

(¶2} A jury trial commenced on November 19, 2012. At the conclusion of the state's case, the domestic violence count was dismissed. The jury found appellant guilty of the amended count and the attempted aggravated burglary count. By sentencing entry filed November 30, 2012, the trial court sentenced appellant to two years on each count, to be served consecutively.

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

I

(¶4} "APPELLANT'S RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS AND A FAIR TRIAL UNDER THE U.S. AND OHIO CONSTITUTIONS WERE IMPERMISSIBLY VIOLATED BY THE STATE'S WILLFUL FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE DISCOVERY REQUIREMENTS OF CRIMINAL RULE 16, WHICH VIOLATION FURTHER CONSTITUTES PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT."

II

(¶5} "APPELLANT WAS DEPRIVED OF DUE PROCESS AND A FAIR TRIAL UNDER THE U.S. AND OHIO CONSTITUTIONS DUE TO THE IMPROPER JURY CHARGE ON COUNT IV, ATTEMPTED AGGRAVATED BURGLARY."

III

(¶6} "APPELLANT WAS DEPRIVED OF A FAIR TRIAL AND DUE PROCESS OF LAW AS GUARANTEED BY THE SIXTH AMENDMENT TO THE U.S. CONSTITUTION AND BY SECTION 10, ARTICLE 1 OF THE OHIO CONSTITUTION DUE TO THE INEFFECTIVENESS OF TRIAL COUNSEL."

IV

(¶7} APPELLANT'S CONVICTIONS ON COUNTS II AND IV ARE CONTRARY TO THE MANIFEST WEIGHT AND SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE PRESENTED AT TRIAL, THUS DENYING APPELLANT A FAIR TRIAL AND DUE PROCESS OF LAW UNDER THE FIFTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS TO THE U.S. CONSTITUTION AND UNDER SECTION 10, ARTICLE 1 OF THE OHIO CONSTITUTION."

V

(¶8} "APPELLANT WAS DENIED DUE PROCESS AND A FAIR TRIAL DUE TO THE CUMULATIVE ERRORS HEREIN, IN DEROGATION OF THE U.S. AND STATE CONSTITUTIONS."

I

(¶9} Appellant claims the state engaged in prosecutorial misconduct in failing to disclose his statement made to a police officer in violation of Crim.R. 16.

(¶10} The test for prosecutorial misconduct is whether the prosecutor's actions were improper and if so, whether those actions prejudicially affected the substantial rights of the accused. State v. Lott, 51 Ohio St.3d 160 (1990). In reviewing allegations of prosecutorial misconduct, it is our duty to consider the complained of conduct in the contest of the entire trial. Darden v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 168 (1986).

(¶11} Crim.R. 16 governs discovery and inspection. Subsections (A) and (B)(1) state the following:

Purpose, Scope and Reciprocity. This rule is to provide all parties in a criminal case with the information necessary for a full and fair adjudication of the facts, to protect the integrity of the justice system and the rights of defendants, and to protect the well-being of witnesses, victims, and society at large. All duties and remedies are subject to a standard of due diligence, apply to the defense and the prosecution equally, and are intended to be reciprocal. Once discovery is initiated by demand of the defendant, all parties have a continuing duty to supplement their disclosures.
Discovery: Right to Copy or Photograph. Upon receipt of a written demand for discovery by the defendant, and except as provided in division (C), (D), (E), (F), or (J) of this rule, the prosecuting attorney shall provide copies or photographs, or permit counsel for the defendant to copy or photograph, the following items related to the particular case indictment, information, or complaint, and which are material to the preparation of a defense, or are intended for use by the prosecuting attorney as evidence at the trial, or were obtained from or belong to the defendant, within the possession of, or reasonably available to the state, subject to the provisions of this rule:
(1) Any written or recorded statement by the defendant or a co-defendant, including police summaries of such statements, and including grand jury testimony ...

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.