 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Smith11/6/1997
JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED.
Defendant-appellant Willie Smith ( appellant ) appeals from his convictions for one count of kidnapping in violation of R.C. 2905.01 and one count of aggravated murder in violation of R.C. 2903.01. Appellant assigns the following errors for our review:
I. THE APPELLANT WAS DENIED DUE PROCESS UNDER THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT AND THE FOURTH WAS VIOLATED WHEN ITEMS SEIZED PURSUANT TO THE SEARCH WARRANT WENT BEYOND THE SCOPE AUTHORIZED.
II. THE APPELLANT WAS DENIED DUE PROCESS AND HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL WHEN COUNSEL FAILED TO CHALLENGE THE SEARCH WARRANT AND FAILED TO CHALLENGE THE ADMISSION OF THE ITEMS SEIZED AT HIS HOME AND THE TESTIMONY OF THE DETECTIVE CONCERNING THESE ITEMS.
III. THE TRIAL COURT IMPROPERLY ALLOWED HEARSAY TESTIMONY TO THE PREJUDICE OF THE APPELLANT IN VIOLATION OF THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSES OF THE OHIO AND U.S. CONSTITUTIONS.
IV. THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED PLAIN ERROR IN ALLOWING THE ADMISSION OF EVIDENCE IN VIOLATION OF EVID.R. 401, 402, 403, 404 AND THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSES OF THE OHIO AND U.S. CONSTITUTIONS.
V. PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT DENIED THE APPELLANT A FAIR TRIAL AS GUARANTEED BY THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSES OF THE OHIO AND FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONS.
VI. THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED PLAIN ERROR WHEN IT IMPOSED A TOTAL OF THIRTY-FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS IN FINES WHEN THE APPELLANT WAS INDIGENT.
VII. THE APPELLANT WAS DENIED HIS RIGHT TO EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL AS GUARANTEED BY THE OHIO AND FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONS WHEN COUNSEL FAILED TO OBJECT TO PREJUDICIAL EVIDENCE, THE STATE'S CLOSING ARGUMENT AND THE IMPOSITION OF EXCESSIVE FINES.
VIII. THE TRIAL COURT IMPROPERLY ACCEPTED INCONSISTENT VERDICTS IN VIOLATION OF THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSES OF TH OHIO AND FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONS.
IX. THE TRIAL COURT IMPROPERLY FAILED TO GIVE A JURY INSTRUCTION ON THE LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE OF ABDUCTION IN VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS AS GUARANTEED BY THE U.S. AND OHIO CONSTITUTIONS.
X. THE TRIAL COURT IMPROPERLY DENIED THE APPELLANT'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A NEW TRIAL MOTION.
XI. THE VERDICTS ARE AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE.
XII. THERE IS INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO SUSTAIN THE VERDICTS.
Finding appellant's appeal to lack merit, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
I.
The present case arises from the issuance of two separate indictments by the trial court. On June 5, 1995, appellant was issued a one count indictment in Case No. CR-323987 for kidnapping in violation of R.C. 2905.01. On June 28, 1995, appellant was issued a separate three count indictment by the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas, Case No. CR-325283. Count I of the indictment charged appellant with aggravated murder in violation of R.C. 2903.01 with a firearm specification and a felony murder specification; Count II of the indictment charged appellant with aggravated murder in violation of R.C. 2903.01 with a firearm specification and a felony murder specification; Count III of the indictment charged appellant with having a weapon while under a disability in violation of R.C. 2923.13 with a firearm specification and a violence specification.
On August 21, 1995, the trial court consolidated the two cases for trial. The charges were renumbered as follows: Case CR-323987, kidnaping, Count I; Case CR-325283, aggravated murder with a felony murder specification and a firearm specification, Counts II and III; having a weapon while under disability with a violence specification and a firearm specification, Count IV.
On October 24, 1995, the jury returned the following
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Ohio Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|