State v. Altman
2013 Ohio 5883
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Defendant Altman was convicted of trafficking in buprenorphine (Suboxone) after a controlled buy conducted by a confidential informant.
- The informant, Bagley, had prior jail time and a history with Altman; the informant was paid and recorded the exchange.
- The controlled buy occurred at Altman's residence; audio of the exchange was transmitted to investigators.
- Bagley testified he purchased four Suboxone tablets from Altman for $60, which corroborated by the drug analyst.
- Evidence included audio/video recordings and police testimony; the trial court denied Crim.R. 29 motions and Altman proceeded to sentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| admissibility of prior acts/character evidence | State contends Evid.R. 404(B) permits relevant non-character use | Altman argues prior incarcerations show bad character and conformance | Not plain error; evidence used for context/identification, not conformity |
| weight of the evidence | State asserts overwhelming evidence including audio, video, and Bagley testimony | Altman claims identification issues and reliance on witness with motives | Not against the manifest weight; record supports verdict |
| ineffective assistance of counsel | State maintains decisions on objections were trial strategy | Altman contends failure to object prejudiced defense | Counsel not ineffective; objections would likely fail and substantial evidence remains |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Issa, 93 Ohio St.3d 49 (Ohio 2001) (plain-error standard governing evidentiary error remains discretionary)
- State v. Bey, 85 Ohio St.3d 487 (Ohio 1999) (rule on admissibility of other-crimes/acts evidence under Evid.R. 404(B))
- State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (Ohio 1997) (standard for manifest-weight review; credibility and weighing evidence)