State v. Glasser, 2012 Ohio 3265

Glasser was indicted on two counts of aggravated arson for fires at his outbuilding and house.
A fire investigator, Brandau, found accelerants on Glasser’s clothing and paper remnants near the side door.
Glasser testified he did not start the fires and proposed a thief theory, including locating ignition points on a diagram.
A.G., Glasser’s son, and neighbor testimonials placed Glasser near the scene with altered behavior and injuries before school.
Elizabeth Glasser, his wife, testified about insurance proceeds and suspicions linking Glasser to the fires; a sister testified to discussions about the policy.
Casto testified to a trail of papers moving through the house and corroborated the possibility that items were removed or missing after the fires.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the causation instruction diluted mens rea	Glasser	Glasser	No abuse of discretion; instruction did not dilute knowingly mens rea.
Whether invoking marital privilege in the jury’s presence was reversible error	Glasser	Glasser	Harmless error given substantial other evidence of guilt.
Whether hearing exhibits outside Glasser’s presence violated Crim.R. 43 and rights	Glasser	Yes, violation unless waived; prejudice shown?	No reversible error; absence did not affect substantial rights; counsel presence aided defense.

State v. Hale, 119 Ohio St.3d 118 (2008-Ohio-3426) (privacy and presence of defendant at proceedings; plain error standards)
State v. Price, 60 Ohio St.2d 136 (1979) (syllabus on reviewing jury instructions and elements)
State v. McNeill, 83 Ohio St.3d 438 (1998) (harmless-error analysis for evidentiary errors)
State v. Dinsio, 176 Ohio St.460 (1964) (evidence-admissibility and privilege issues in testimony)
State v. Fisher, 2003-Ohio-? (2003) (Crim.R.52 harmless error standard)
Snyder v. Massachusetts, 343 U.S. 1? (contextual) (1934) (presence of defendant and fair trial rights)
State v. Brown, 2009-Ohio-5390 (2009) (jury instruction review standard)