State v. Bolden
2017 Ohio 6931
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- On Jan. 1, 2016, Bolden and two others were identified as suspects in a gas-station shooting/robbery that wounded two victims; shell casings matched a gun found in a nearby house and gunshot residue was found on Bolden.
- Bolden was arrested near the house; victim Gilcrease’s phone was found on Bolden at the jail and surveillance video identified him at the scene.
- Indicted on multiple counts, Bolden was tried by jury; acquitted on one count and another dismissed, but convicted of two counts of felonious assault and one count of aggravated robbery with firearm specifications and sentenced to 22 years.
- At trial the State played recorded, monitored jail phone calls between Bolden and an unidentified female (believed to be his grandmother); the tape contained Bolden’s admissions and the female’s comments suggesting guilt.
- Defense argued the recording should have been excluded under Evid.R. 403 as unfairly prejudicial; the court overruled the objection, instructed the jury to disregard the female caller’s statements as to truth, and admitted Bolden’s statements as party admissions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of jail phone recording | Recording is relevant and necessary to show Bolden’s admissions and to avoid an edited, incomplete tape | Recording should be excluded under Evid.R. 403 because the female caller’s statements unfairly prejudiced Bolden (family member expressing belief he was guilty) | Admission was not an abuse of discretion: Bolden’s statements were party admissions; female’s remarks provided context only; jury was cautioned to disregard her statements for truth |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Conway, 109 Ohio St.3d 412 (2006) (standard for appellate review of evidentiary rulings — abuse of discretion)
- State v. Issa, 93 Ohio St.3d 49 (2001) (abuse-of-discretion standard for admission of evidence)
- State v. Williams, 134 Ohio St.3d 521 (2012) (cautionary instructions can reduce risk of unfair prejudice)
- State v. Morales, 32 Ohio St.3d 252 (1987) (probative value must be minimal and prejudicial effect great to exclude under Evid.R. 403)
- State v. Lang, 129 Ohio St.3d 512 (2011) (definition of "unfair prejudice" and distinction from legitimate probative force)
- United States v. Bonds, 12 F.3d 540 (6th Cir. 1993) (definition of unfair prejudice as decision on an improper basis)