State v. Creech (Slip Opinion)
150 Ohio St. 3d 540
| Ohio | 2016Background
- Defendant Stedmund Creech was charged with three counts of having a weapon while under disability (R.C. 2923.13) based on (1) a pending indictment for aggravated drug trafficking (June 2012) and (2–3) two 2009 felony convictions (felonious assault with a deadly weapon and possession of crack cocaine).
- At trial Creech offered to stipulate to a disability for any one of the charged counts and asked the state be precluded from introducing evidence of the other prior offenses; the court refused.
- The prosecution introduced the full judgment entry for the 2009 convictions (which stated Creech “shot at, but missed” a victim) and the 2012 indictment (including trafficking near a school) in opening, testimony, exhibits, and closing argument.
- The jury convicted Creech on all three counts; the court merged the allied offenses for sentencing and imposed one term of imprisonment.
- The Seventh District reversed on appeal, adopting the U.S. Supreme Court’s reasoning in Old Chief v. United States and holding the trial court abused its discretion by refusing the stipulation and admitting the full prior-offense records; this Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Creech) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by refusing Creech’s offer to stipulate to prior convictions/indictment and admitting full records of prior offenses | The State may present its case in its chosen form; it was entitled to introduce the official records and name/nature of prior offenses | Creech argued that a stipulation to the fact of a qualifying prior conviction/indictment would be sufficient and that admitting the full records was unfairly prejudicial under Evid.R. 403 (following Old Chief) | Held: Trial court abused its discretion; when the name or nature of a prior offense creates a risk of unfair prejudice and the only purpose of the record is to prove status, the court must accept a defendant’s stipulation and exclude the detailed record under Evid.R. 403 |
| Whether the probative value of the state’s evidence was outweighed by unfair prejudice, and whether a limiting instruction cured any error | The State argued the records were probative and admissible; limiting instructions were sufficient | Creech argued the records (especially a prior gun-related assault and trafficking near a school) risked impermissible character/propensity reasoning and were not cured by instruction | Held: Probative value was discounted by availability of stipulation and substantially outweighed by danger of unfair prejudice; the limiting instruction was insufficient |
| Applicability of Old Chief (federal precedent) to Ohio Evid.R. 403 and R.C. 2923.13 | The State contended Old Chief did not compel acceptance of a unilateral stipulation and noted statutory differences | Creech relied on Old Chief’s rule that a defendant’s stipulation to status is equivalent to the official record and less prejudicial | Held: Court adopted Old Chief’s reasoning as persuasive and applied it to Ohio law, while acknowledging statutory differences; result favors admitting stipulation rather than full record when sole purpose is to prove status |
Key Cases Cited
- Old Chief v. United States, 519 U.S. 172 (defendant’s stipulation to prior conviction must be accepted when admission of full judgment record would create unfair prejudice under Rule 403)
- Michelson v. United States, 335 U.S. 469 (prior bad acts propensity concerns and limits on proving character)
- State v. Perry, 101 Ohio St.3d 118 (framework for identifying legal error and selecting review standard on appeal)
- State v. Ruff, 143 Ohio St.3d 114 (Ohio law on allied offenses/merger for sentencing)