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. Allen

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Fifth District

August 26, 2013

STATE OF OHIO Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
JAMES ALLEN Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the Court of Common Pleas, Case No. 2012CR963

For Plaintiff-Appellee JOHN D. FERRERO Prosecuting Attorney KATHLEEN O. TATARSKY

For Defendant-Appellant JACOB T. WILL

Hon. Sheila G. Farmer, P.J. Hon. John W. Wise, J. Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, J.

OPINION

Farmer, P.J.

(¶1} On August 6, 2012, the Stark County Grand Jury indicted appellant, James Allen, on one count of vehicular assault in violation of R.C. 2903.08 and one count of endangering children in violation of R.C. 2919.22. Said charges arose from an incident wherein appellant drove his vehicle off the roadway, striking a house. His passengers therein, his wife and two children, sustained injuries.

(¶2} A jury trial commenced on September 11, 2012. The jury found appellant guilty as charged. By judgment entry filed September 24, 2012, the trial court sentenced appellant to an aggregate term of five years in prison.

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

I

(¶4} "THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN PERMITTING THE PROSECUTOR TO USE PRIOR HEARSAY STATEMENTS TO IMPEACH A WITNESS PURSUANT TO EVID. R. 613."

II

(¶5} "THE DEFENDANT'S CONVICTIONS FOR ONE COUNT OF VEHICULAR ASSAULT IN VIOLATION OF R.C. 2903.08 AND ONE COUNT OF ENDANGERING CHILDREN IN VIOLATION OF R.C. 2919.22 WERE AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT AND SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE."

I

(¶6} Appellant claims the trial court erred in permitting the state to use prior hearsay statements to impeach a witness pursuant to Evid.R. 613. We disagree.

(¶7} Evid.R. 613 provides the following in pertinent part:

(B) Extrinsic evidence of prior inconsistent statement of witness. Extrinsic evidence of a prior inconsistent statement by a witness is admissible if both of the following apply:
(1)If the statement is offered solely for the purpose of impeaching the witness, the witness is afforded a prior opportunity to explain or deny the statement and the opposite party is afforded an opportunity to interrogate the witness on the statement or the interests of justice otherwise require;
(2)The subject matter of the statement is one of the following:
(a)A fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action other than the ...

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.